Guided Missile

I see from this article that Andrew Andronikou still thinks he's still playing Championship Manager. What a pr !ck...

Here

I think Gaydamak should be worried. There is an interesting paragraph in Griffins modified CVA that addresses this very issue: The case law is clear that a person cannot set their unsecured claim off against a claim the company might have against them. As far as I can tell there is no law as to whether the company could instead use the set off principle to reject a claim in an insolvency. Only the Administrators are in a position to know whether there is any claim at all and if so how much this could be. In my opinion, what will happen if Griffins are appointed as administrators, is that they will seek to setoff the £54M in losses that Gaydamak was responsible for, whilst trading insolvently, against the £32M he is claiming. It will be up to Gaydamak to: Prove, in a UK court, that his debt is valid. Prove, in a UK court, that Pompey weren't trading whilst insolvent, while he controlled the club. I think HMRC will definitely be having a pop at Chanrai and the legitimacy of his debt, but not until they have taken control via Griffins, of the administration/liquidation procedure and dealt with Gaydamak, first of all. Divide and conquer...

They need to, after our sh 1t squad tonked them 5:0. You remember that one, alps. You had f*** all to post ...

How would alpine know what positions we are deficient in? He doesn't go to games. You might as well ask a blind man to judge a beauty contest.

This whole thread exists because, in general, Saints fans have the ability to post interesting and thought provoking contributions to a debate that we happen to find entertaining. The debate is carried out on a website that is a thousand times better that anything that exists for Pompey fans. This thread is not really about the clubs or their fans. It is more about the fact that Southampton fans that post on this site, do not have chips on their shoulders about a neighbour, none of us really give a sh !t about, can tolerate alternative opinions from the likes of you, because none of us suffer from the insecurity your fans do, which is present, from not knowing the identity of your fathers. We allow you to post whatever you want, without the need to ban you "because you are a skate", due to the fact that it all contributes to the lively nature of this board and, when this thread finally comes to an end, it will be found to be the most balanced and accurate summary of what went on, at the cess pit you call a club. Long may HMRC read it and learn...

I applaud the policy taken by the club. Our owner didn't borrow anything to buy SFC, doesn't intend to borrow, in order to buy players or invest in the new training ground and obviously expects the fans to follow his excellent example. The added bonus is that there will be no poor people attending games...

Where did you get the impression that everyone was paid in full???? I downloaded the final Report of the joint administrators, dated 22nd February, 2010, prior to the liquidation of Southampton Leisure Holding a couple months ago. This reports that "the joint administrators completed the sale of the main assets of the Company, including its shareholding in Southampton Football Club Limited...Marchwood Training ground...Jackson's farm development land." It goes on to state "All of these assets were subject to security and details of the sale are subject to confidentiality. The joint administrators confirm that the value of the assets sold was significantly less than the amounts outstanding to the secured creditors and accordingly, no monies are available from the sale of these assets for the benefit of unsecured creditors. As part of the transaction, the secured creditors agreed full and final settlements...." Let's not start any ridiculous urban myths, shall we....?

I just remembered that BA had merged with British Caledonian a year before I took the flight and had taken on their routes. For those aviation anoraks out there that are interested, their old route map is here and shows how low the industry has gone, since sh 1t airlines like Easyjet and Ryanair have brought flying to the British underclass...

I flew to Abidjan in 1988 on BA. They used to serve Abidjan back when majority of their African flights were from London Gatwick. Flights were twice weekly. (BA078/079 - DC-10 - LGW-ABJ-LGW Su/Mo)

I spent a week in the jungle of the Ivory Coast, working on a project to try and eradicate river blindness. At the start of the trip, within 30 minutes of leaving the airport, our car was stopped by Government troops, who "asked" for $50 so that they could get a bus back to their headquarters. After a week by a river, at the end of a 5 mile dirt track, eating fish stew and being bittien by the flies we were trying to control, flying in helicopters alond the river rapids piloted by Vietnam vets who regaled me with the short life expectancy amongst the pilots who sprayed the rivers to control the fly larvae, I left for the return trip from Abidjan airport. On the way to the airport, I had plenty of time to witness a country in which human life has a price far lower than the west. Dead bodies lay by the roadside, unclaimed. Children begged for food at every traffic light, their blind elder brothers standing behind them with a hand on their shoulder. Eventually I fought past the crowds in the teeming third world airport and checked in for my flight. As I boarded the flight, I was greeted by a stewardess on the only British airline serving this hellhole. I slumped in my seat on this BA flight, already feeling like I was back in the UK and vowed, from that day on, that whenever I had a choice, I would "fly the flag". Employees come and go, but I use BA and don't find, in the long run, it is more expensive and it serves more airports than any of those that concentrate on that section of the population that travels for needless pleasure.

Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle's inspiration for Sherlock Holmes was Dr. Joseph Bell. Can it be, after all these years, that using a madman as a medium, Conan-Doyle is reminding us of this fact? What other clues is he leaving us? What is the significance of the invisible sheik? Why has a Greek imbecile taken over the football club, while a shadowy Asian lurks in the background? What do John W******d's tattoo's really say?

Arthur Conan-Doyle played in goal for Pompey... ...if only he was still around to figure out where all the money went. Caption Competition:

...classic film of our team "training" from 75 years ago. We weren't much better in a game as this demonstrates, but I can't help thinking that crowds were better, even though the standard was low and so were the wages... ...mind you, a few years, later in 1948, it all started going t!ts up, when the players made ridiculous demands. Watch this short piece to the end. We had the most contented players in the country, that season. I'm sure we still do...

....Rob Lloyd, the property developer who represents an unknown potential buyer of Portsmouth, said he did not expect his client to make an offer for the club until a Company Voluntary Arrangement had been agreed with creditors. Lloyd refused to respond to comments from Portsmouth's administrator, Andrew Andronikou, who questioned the authenticity of his interest. Lloyd says his client is still interested in buying the club. "We're still cracking on," he said, "but I don't think anything will happen until the CVA."... Pinnacle Mark II, by the look of things...

Anyone think that HMRC may have been following this thread?

I saw three of the Pompey team playing football with a hedgehog in Hyde Park, this morning. I was about to call the RSPCA, until the hedgehog went one nil up...

When is anyone going to realise that the issue is no longer the parties, but the policies and there is only one issue that requires a strong policy and that is the massive debts run up under Labour? All of the parties agree that cuts will have to be made in public spending. The only argument is when they have to be made. If we don't get this right, it is hardly going to be possible to finance the other policies that each party wants to enact after the next election. Watching Clegg and Brown, just demonstrates how much these two grubby, unprincipled politicians have learnt from the Mugabe school of "Holding on to Power". All their supporters can continue to sing along to their "Politics of Envy" tune, but I can foresee, if we allow their leaky boat to set sail, that we'll soon be printing £10,000 notes, that will fuel the fires, that will be burning on the barricades in London...

You only joined for the rum, bum and baccy...

I think I'll wait and see a direct quote from HMRC. The administrator said: "...the increase may be due to HMRC demanding revenue on image rights, which are usually paid to players' off-shore accounts. " We'll see, because I can't believe that they're not due a penalty or two from the taxman...

The law allows HMRC to reduce the penalty to take into account the nature and quality of any disclosure made to them. A number of issues emerge here. Firstly the legislation introduces the concept of ‘unprompted disclosure'. Basically this will happen if the taxpayer brings the error to HMRC's notice without HMRC being aware of it or having already started an inquiry. The law states that any other type of disclosure will be regarded as prompted and that will make a significant difference to the level of penalty. Disclosure does not just mean bringing the matter to HMRC's attention. Account will also be taken of the co-operation which is given to HMRC in quantifying the error and in providing access to records. Guidance in HMRC's manual suggests that the reduction to be made in the penalty will be greatest where: the original disclosure is full and complete and covers not only what the error was but how and why it arose; the taxpayer provides full co-operation in enabling the investigation to be concluded as quickly as possible; and the taxpayer allows HMRC access to records and documents without the need to resort to formal orders. HMRC will take these issues into account in determining the level of reduction which can be made to the maximum penalty. They are not allowed, however, to go below a minimum level which the law stipulates. These minimum levels are as follows: Nature of offence Max % Min unprompted Min prompted Careless action 30% 0% 15% Deliberate no concealment 70% 20% 35% Deliberate with concealment 100% 35% 50% It is very obvious that there is a significant effect in making a full unprompted disclosure. Even in prompted disclosure situations the level of co-operation will make a large difference to the ultimate penalty level. Assessing the penalty Basic procedure The law requires that a penalty should be formally assessed by HMRC. They have an important power to suspend some or all of any penalty which relates to careless action only. If they decide to do this, they can stipulate the period for which the penalty is suspended and can impose conditions on the taxpayer which must be complied with. At the end of the period HMRC will consider whether the taxpayer has met the conditions. If the conditions are satisfied then the penalty will be dropped. If they have not then the penalty can be imposed. HMRC are only likely to do this where they can set and measure the conditions to improve compliance. It is unlikely that they would agree to suspend a penalty in relation to a one-off item like a capital gain. Liability of an officer of a company The penalty provisions extend to situations in which a company becomes liable to a penalty and the inaccuracy arose as a result of the deliberate action of an officer of the company. In those circumstances HMRC can seek to recover some or all of the penalty from the officer personally. This approach is likely to be followed where it is clear that the officer may have gained personally from the deliberate inaccuracy or where the company is, or is likely to become insolvent and will not have funds to pay the penalty.

A back of the fag packet calculation leaves me thinking that this is how it may pan out. Chanrai's loan is deemed unsecured, thus total unsecured debt is £135M. HMRC is claiming £35M, which is 25.9% of the total. Is it possible that HMRC is going to say to the directors of PCFC that if the company can't pay them, then the directors (ie the gunrunners son) will have to and if they don't, they will vote against the CVA in 28 days time?

Ahem...one I posted earlier :

I would imagine that the prospective buyers are waiting to watch this program. I can't wait to see Tony Husbands hard hitting documentary, at the end of which, he laughs at some lame joke from Sally Taylor. Sally: "Thank you, Tony. I wonder if that's the last we see of John W******ds bell?" Tony: "I bet you'd love to see his bell end, Sally" Cue laughter and cut to the weather...

...I came across this remarkable video from Sweden, which shows that it is not only in Southampton, that our owner is worshipped...