Wes Tender

Yep. Here it is:- http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Hart-rejected-CVA-proposals.6370300.jp One wonders why that chairman was not contactable. It rather smacks to me as if he just cold-shouldered the slimey arrogant tosser Adronikou. I imagine that he had quite enough of dealing with the Cowboy outfit that is Pompey. But it begs the answer to the question I asked, as to whether they would have been paid anyway as football creditors. The whole thing is murky and is perhaps further complicated by the court cases that are pending. The News say that had the CVA not been approved, the club would face liquidation. This isn't strictly correct, is it? If THIS CVA had not been accepted, then another would have to have been produced and then another presumably. If no CVA was acceptable, then the club might face liquidation. And so before the CVA has been passed in the courts, the Skates have appointed a chief executive and he has appointed a new manager. This all seems a bit premature to me, as it presumes that any new owner, however unlikely that might be, would naturally wish to make their own appointments. Furthermore, it begs enquiry as to what clauses might be in their contracts covering the eventuality of them ceasing to exist or being demoted down the divisions.

Whether they have voting powers or not, I don't know. But surely Hart and Udinese are also football creditors, so why did they both vote against the CVA if they will get 100% payment? Andronikou, who is truly as loathsome and dispicable a specimen as one is likely to meet in these affairs, is scathing about Hart's vote against the CVA and says that Udinese were uncontactable, inferring that if he had managed to contact them, they might have voted differently. I wonder what Andronikou's position would be if he were owed £450,000 by a former employer in administration? Of course, we all know that an individual so principled, so honest and full of integrity as he is, would forego that payment willingly. NOT.

Then Slater goes on to say that HMRC could still appeal the CVA, that they will challenge the Football Creditors ruling in Court and also that the Court ruling on Messrs Redcrapp. Storrieteller and Mandaric was also still to come. So why would we be disappointed? The Android has presumably massaged the figures unethically and could receive sanctions against him that might jeopardise his future career as an Insolvency Practitioner. It was the expectation that he would somehow pull a stroke like this to get the CVA through, so I suspect that most on here are rubbing their hands in glee and anticipation at the further fun to come.

Yes, there are resident insolvency experts on this forum, posters like Clapham Saint seem to know what they are talking about. In the absence of any evidence to show that they are talking bunk, which I have not seen so far over a long period of their contributions, I'm inclined to believe their predicted outcomes rather than what that bent chancer Android says. I'm sure that Joe Bloggs Jeans bloke and his family thought that they would get away with the Android massaging the debt figures to edge out HMRC too. Pompey are at that same stage of the CVA and some believe that the Android has pulled a fast one again and got away with it. It is encouraging that HMRC have already made it clear that they are considering their position. Somebody believes that they will not relish crossing swords with the Android, but IMO they would love to have him by the balls in court again, proving that he is not only incompetent, but also with luck that he has acted illegally somewhere along the line. It has also been suggested that HMRC won't hang around in their challenge, giving early notice. But surely it will benefit them to string it along right up to the line, utilising the time to engage legal counsel to go through everything with a fine tooth comb to achieve maximum effect of their courtroom broadside. As for whether the FL lift the signings embargo before the 28 day appeals period has expired, then they might well have egg all over their faces if the appeal succeeds and the CVA is overturned and HMRC's % is deemed to be in excess of the 25%. What happens to those signings or loans in that event?

If you were a SENSIBLE Pompey fan, then you'd not believe that you were out of the woods until the 28 day appeal period had passed and the CVA was approved in Court.

You're jumping the gun again, Nick. If HMRC challenge the CVA in the Courts, won't the FL maintain the transfer embargo until the case has been decided? Even if they get past that unscathed, further points deductions can be made by the FL if the Court cases against Redcrapp, Storrie and Mandaric are successful, probably scuppering Pompey's efforts at promotion. And you're also presuming that the Ukrainians, whoever they are, would pass the fit and proper persons rules too.

There's a mixed bag posting in response to The New's announcement of the CVA approval, so at least some realists do exist amongst their fanbase. But here is an example of one of the most deluded ones. If he had one objective bone in his body, I think that he would find that it was Andronikou who manipulated the debt figures so that the HMRC would have less than the necessary 25% to upset the CVA. I think that he'd also find that part of the debt to the HMRC was a penalty fine for late payment, but that the remainder actually does exist as current debt, not some projection of what they think it should be. Also I laugh at the incredible naivety that assumes that HMRC would be taking a massive risk in going to court "to lose more taxpayers' money challenging something they have a good chance of losing. I'm sure that they won't be taking the advice of Paul 99's assessment of their chances, quite possibly preferring to act on the advice of top legal counsel instead. But if he had the intelligence to look at the big picture, essentially it is a toss up between getting 20% of 17 million or 20% of 37 million, or challenging the football creditors ruling and getting much more. And what is the position regarding costs if they are successful? Are they awarded to HMRC and therefore added to the indebtedness of Pompey? There seems amongst the Skate fanbase to be a willingness to count their chickens before they have come home to roost. They are going to be so upset when it does go to court, delaying their season until such times as they will be in massive disarray.

I'm totally ambivalent about it. It means nothing until the cooling off period has expired without a challenge by HMRC.

You will persist in believing that the Skates have got away with it. The CVA might well be passed today, but that doesn't mean for one minute that they will get away with it. Instead of lowering my sights, I'm a believer that they will in fact be more burnt toast than they were previously. It seems that you have been bamboozled by all the smoke and mirrors. It will go to court and not only will HMRC win, but the repercussions for the Skates will be more dire than if they had the CVA turned down today. Further implications are still up in the air as to what the FL league do about the transfer embargo if the CVA is contested in court. Do they lift it, allowing the Skates to make these high profile loans and signings and then have several other clubs taking legal action because the Skates have gained an unfair advantage in the event that the courts find in favour of HMRC? And do you also ignore the barrier that stands in the way of Chainrai's masterplan, the points deductions in the pipeline for the tax cheating of Messrs Redcrapp, Storrieteller and Mandaric? As for Cotterill, is he really that idiotic that he would go to the Skates with all this sh*t yet to hit the fan, rather than Hull or anywhere else? If he does sign on as manager for them, then his tenure will not be very long. Perhaps he is that dumb, as he possibly isn't as well informed about their position as we are.

Did you email Dave Luker then?

I'm with you on this. The announcement that he will make today that the CVA has been accepted by the required 75% of creditors will undoubtedly be meaningless, as I'm confident that it will be contested in Court.

I did bother to look at the Saints OS to see what they said about it all, but I agree with you and Ken Tone that they are going about it the wrong way. Undoubtedly there will be an element who will decide to go match by match instead. Although the cost per match on a ST means that the club get less revenue than if those fans attended every match and paid on the door, it has to be reasoned that many will not attend some matches on Tuesday nights when it is wet and cold and we are playing some minnow team. Likewise they will naturally not be attending when holidays away intervene, or perhaps when a match is televised. Frankly, I find this all a bit short-sighted and against the principles of the much trumpeted customer charter which seems to have been ditched. STs encourage attendance, but if attendance is not possible, the club has the money regardless. If the club wished to have a shining example of how it should be done, then they ought to study Norwich, a club of similar size, but a massive take up of STs with a policy of rewarding loyalty and encouraging the youngsters to become the fans of the future. The fans' forum will be taking place as usual on Solent I hope and there is a gilt-edged opportunity to grill Cortese on the reasons why the installment plan has been dropped and why half-season tickets have also been dropped.

Complete idiot. He's also the Walter Mitty of the insolvency profession, lacking integrity and ethical or moral fibre. The club gets the administrator it deserves.

I was hugely impressed with the North Koreans, having expected Brazil to steamroller them. Or would it be more correct to say that Brazil were a massive disappointment compared to the highest standards that they have set historically? When I have watched so many matches so far and the standard has mainly been so much dross, the reason for it begins to turn to suspicions that it is the ball at fault. Why is it that Brazillians and Italians shoot and the ball ends up in row Z? Who sanctions the increasing desire to replace footballs with beach balls anyway? If the players are critical of it and their comments were available to the World's press before the tournament began, then why were their concerns apparently ignored or overlooked? Did Addidas bribe the officials to accept it?

I heard on the radio that Sainsbury's had been making mega-bucks from selling huge amounts of them over here. I do hope that football clubs in the UK ban them from entering grounds. If anybody blows one anywhere grabbing distance of me during a Saints match, Southampton General will have to perform surgery to have it removed from their arse.

Thank goodness for this thread. I had read about the withdrawal of the installment plan, but cannot remember reading that the club would not be sending out reminders and application forms to renew a ST. So if this thread is correct, we have until the 30th June I presume to renew, if we want the same seat. Frankly, I'm with Beatlesaint on this; I think that it is poor that the club have not contacted ST holders by post to inform them of these things.

Are you legally qualified to make that judgement? If AA somehow attempts to downplay the amount that the club owes HMRC, then I feel certain that HMRC will go to Court over it. That would be the last thing that the Android would want, as his past misdemeanours will be brought up and questions also asked about how the £60 million or so of debt in the SOA given to the Courts at the time of the winding-up order suddenly increased when Andronikou was appointed. Anyway, there is plenty of fun to be had when HMRC's challenge to the Football Creditors' ruling goes to court as well as the trials of Redcrapp, Storrie-teller and Mandaric.

Exactly. The support leached away because of various factors, because of Lowe, because of relegation, because of incompetent Dutch coaches, because of playing the youngsters, because of losing virtually every game and a growing hopelessness and negativity through division and strife. The support has grown steadily because many of those things have been addressed with a new owner, decent manager, good players playing attractive football and better entertainment value when we win more often than not. There is also a buzz about the place, positivity through unity and optimism. Sensible supporters accept that if we end up playing in the top flight, then prices will increase because they are paying to watch World stars in some matches. If they don't wish to pay increased ticket prices, then the option remains to save their money by watching Eastleigh, Bournemouth, Salisbury, or the Skates, whose ticket prices will soon reflect their lowly position and the low calibre quality of their players. If they could not contemplate not watching the Saints, then they will support them through thick and thin, rather like in a marriage contract, like the rest of us proper fans.

Why would that surprise you? I can't be bothered to read all through the posts, but will take your post as being evidence that most feel that they are happy with how things are and that they are enjoying supporting the club at the moment. If we succeed and then ML puts the club up for sale to make a tidy profit on his investment along the way, then good luck to him. We will be back in the Premiership as a result and will be a profitable going concern. If money has been spent on increasing the size of the stadium in the process and we are also playing in Europe, then so much the better. I'll make my judgement call on that situation if it comes to pass. In the meantime, I'm enjoying the ride, unless something comes up to spoil it. If that comes to pass, then the time for comment is then, not now.

The subscription for the site is irrelevant. It is more to the point that we have people on here who are very competent when it comes to web design and that was obvious to anybody accessing the site before. Now we are just your typical average run of the mill site, in the same way that the official club website is exactly the same as most others too. We could be better, indeed we were better with what we had before. The old maxim holds good; it it ain't broke, why fix it?

Neither. I'm well travelled and have been to Thailand several times. But you show some old world courtesy describing the "operatives" at Horton Heath as ladies.

You're wrong about Stoneham being EBCs fault, but I just can't be arsed to go over all of that ground again. But at least you're right that there is no way that they'd allow the stadium to be at Jackson's Farm.

5 in Thai is Ha So as this thread has reached 555, then altogether now.... Hahaha at the Skates, :lol:

I used to go there for Mo'jive. It was one of the first places in the area to have that and was very popular with dances on a couple of nights a week and sometimes freestyle at the weekends. Then the venue became unavailable 6/7 years ago and the Mo'jive had to go elsewhere. The floor was excellent and one of the best sprung dance floors in the area. What a shame that it has now been burnt to the ground by a couple of scrotty little yobs. Unfortunately they are too young for the magistrate to throw the book at them, but a shame that their parents cannot be held to account in some way.

So we're wishing to portray ourselves as a 20th century outfit, rather than the modern, thrusting, dynamic club that we ought to be. Perhaps we should use fonts that were around 125 years ago instead and be really retro, although that would look even more odd on a website.