standy

The liquidator (probably AA) would be responsible for selling off the clubs assets. So Fratton Park would be sold and could be bought by the 'new club' for a cheap. knock down price. Bear in mind that Gaydamak owns the land around it and could use this to prevent development or possibly access. The scenario has the hallmark of a property deal. Say 'Hello' to Tesco Fratton Park and housing for the pikey families.

HMRC are playing the long game. That's why we have only just learned about the £17m fine for the unpaid tax bill. they would not have imposed that if the were going to just 'roll over' about this matter. Suppose they accepted 20p in the £. How many of us would phone them up and ask them to reduce our tax bill. That's why they will never accept anything less than full payment. The crucial vote comes in a week or so and we will see then if the CVA is accepted or not. Should HMRC be on the losing side I would expect the matter to go back to court as HMRC are bound to challenge the validity of the enhanced debt. They will ask the court to refer to the SOA which was about half what AA is now claiming to be the debt. Fear not The toast is under the grill. We will just have to wait a bit longer !

Any money from season ticket sales would constitute 'new debt' and NOT be part of the original CVA. Therefore no voting rights.

Attached is my enquiry with the FA and their reply. Not surprising really. Sir In a recent article Mr Platini is quoted as saying “I’m not an expert of finance, but it was easy to understand that clubs like Portsmouth would be in big danger of going bankrupt and going down. We have to protect them. Why was this club winning [the FA Cup in 2008] with losses of £50 million? ......... ....................but it’s what has happened in football: you don’t have the money to buy the players, but you get the players and in the end you cheat and win the competition. That’s not correct.” If the Presedent of EUFA considers PFC to have cheated their way to the FA cup final, can you please explain to me why they have not been replaced with one of the losing semi finalists Regards Andy Dear Andy Thank you for contacting The Football Association. The club, like all competing in The FA Cup, are subject to the Rules of the Competition, but we cannot comment further on the specifics of individual cases. Kind regards Alex Burkwood | Customer Relations Officer Customer Relations The FA Group Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London, HA9 0WS Postal address: Wembley Stadium, PO Box 1966, London, SW1P 9EQ

I wrote to the FA yesterday to ask why they are still in the FA cup as their cheating ways have now been recognised. I have not had a reply. Does anyone else want to send a similar EMail to see if we can raise the profile of this point

I served as a Detective Constable on the Fraud Squad in Hampshire until recently when I retired. In 2006 I visited FP and had meeting with club lawyer and finance man re the £50m invested by Gaydamak. The Constabulary were not interested in looking into the matter and when Gaydamak sent in a letter from a Russian Bank to say that he had taken out a loan from them to buy the club, they accepted it on face value. There was a strong suspicion that the money had come from his father via Angola but there was no obvious proof. The Bank was also part owned by Gaydamak and the whole affair had an unpleasant smell about it. It would have been hard to disprove the letter as getting evidence from Russia is not a quick or easy matter. I would be very interested to see what would happen if any referral is made to the police, I do not believe that Hampshire has the capability to investigate it as they broke up the Fraud Squad. Due to the size of the debt,no doubt the investigation would involve the Serious Fraud Squad but this would, from past experience, draw out the investigation especially with a number of off shore bank accounts to be investigated. This may give the FL an opportunity to bury its head in the sand and say 'Well leave it to the police' instead of taking some immediate action. My money is still on HMRC who seem to be playing the waiting game. THe SOA has been accepted by the Court and the Judge made the decision not to wind them up, based on that document. She will be rasther upset if she thinks she has been duped and I believe that the SOA will rear its head to bite Pompey on the b*m in due course.

I'm glad that PIR finds playing against 1st Division Teams such a thrill. With any luck he can play in that division in a couple of years time- or if he's really lucky he may be playing in the Blue Square. Hey its still the premiership!!

Of course the Tax man is keeping an eye on this and will have his day (or 5 or more) in court. No doubt he will wait for the CVA to be agreed or not and will then challenge the figures. Those prepared by Vantis have already been accepted by the court and AA will have to explain why the additional debts were not disclosed too Vantis. I would expect HMRC to ask the court to go with the original figures or those percentages to ensure that they have their 25%. HMRC are very upset with thre football debt rule and are trying everything they can to overturn it. AA may be playing into their hands with his poor handling of the administration. I expect another last minute challenge by HMRC with a request for a drawn out hearing hearing back at court which will take PFC past the cut off date for when they to have the CVA agreed. Therefore more points deductions and hopefully toast!!

He may have to go back to Court but he is all powerful and acts as a Director would do. So Yes He can look to wind them up

Administrators are very good at spending any money that is left in a company and will work tirelessly until the money runs out. I don't know how much AA and his firm charge but they will not come cheaply. Once they have exhausted any available money, their attitude tends to change and a quick exit is sought often leaving the creditors virtually unpaid. The court hearings, I believe are still set and the Judge will oversee the Administration. I wonder how he will view the rise in company debt. Is there any realistic prospect of it being repaid. If not it may well be 'Bye Bye Pompey' =- Fingers crossed

My bid has also raised no response. .. and I said I had £5 ti invest although I did ask for change

The point is that the Taxman is opposing everything that Pimply do. Therefore should the Administration be deemed to be legal, then they are unlikely to agree with any CVA which does not give them !00p in the pound. As the major unsecured creditor, this will prevent them leaving the administration which will effect them as and when they try to get into the Championship or where ever else they go and would result in a further point deduction.