Guided Missile

I think it's worth remembering who has taken PCFC to court. There were two complainants, HMRC and Grosvenor, I believe. I don't think PCFC can decide they don't want to play this particular game, nor try and impose some form of alternative administration on the two other parties. The court has been asked to consider winding the company up, end of... The main purpose of the hearing is to "lift the shadow" over the current administration and the only thing that PCFC can do is provide the evidence asked for by the court. HMRC will be presenting their findings based on the Fuglers client account and then it's over to the judge. PCFC have run out of room to maneouvre, IMO and it is out of there hands. If they are telling the truth and the evidence supports them, they will have no problem. If there is a suggestion that their owners have sought to gain an unfair advantage over the creditors by falsifying a charge with Companies House, then it will be a case of liquidate and persue the guilty...

This is where you and I differ. I don't think Chanrai lent any money to PCFC and he is not about to start, now. The only way a newly appointed receveiver will allow PCFC to continue trading, is if there is cash in the bank to allow it to, without making the existing creditors positions worse. The only way that will happen is via a cash advance from the EPL, the sale of assets, i.e. players, or the injection of equity (not a loan) from the shareholders or a new investor. Apart from those three options, I'm struggling to figure out other ways of keeping this circus going. I think that the suggestion of impropriety, particularly when the HMRC get to review the activity in the Fuglers client account, with regard to the administration, may mean that the whole money laundering suspicion surrounding this rotting corpse may push the judge in a completely new direction. I don't think there is a "poor little guy" in this case. It's more like "big rich crooks" that are the major creditors and I would love it if the judge winds the club up and allows these gun running crooks to dangle in the wind.

Daily Torygraph Andrew Andronikou, the Portsmouth administrator, has admitted that he cannot yet confirm whether the £15 million that has been promised by owner Balram Chainrai will be given to the club or would place even further debt on the company.

Remind me what Mark Fry got for Southampton FC? £13-15M including an as new 32,000 seater stadium. He'll be lucky to get £5M...

Casting my mind back to February, I recall that Daniel Azougy, the crooked lawyer that was negotiating the transfer deals that Pompey were able to complete during the window, is a close associate of Chanrai's. He was found guilty of FOUR counts of embezzling client funds in Israel in 2002 Pondering where the money went, it appears possible that far from lending money to PCFC, HMRC are suggesting that money went in the other direction, from Fuglers client account directly to Chanrai/Portpin. The fact that no additional money was lent to PCFC was apparent from the statement of affairs that was lodged with HMRC on the 17th February. So, the Premier League held on to more than £2 million from Portsmouth's player sales in January to cover money owed to other clubs. Chelsea and Watford received cash owed from when Pompey signed Glen Johnson and Tommy Smith respectively. And, once the players' wages have been covered, the £4 million remainder from the £8 million Portsmouth earned from selling defender Younes Kaboul and keeper Asmir Begovic could have been used to pay off creditors. My guess is that the £4M went into Fuglers PCFC client account, stayed there for about 5 minutes and then went straight to Chanrai/Portpin, on or about 2nd February. Once that happened, Azougy was publicly removed from his post. Since then he has been praying for the club: When asked what role he played in the transfers of Younes Kaboul and Asmir Begovic, Azougy said: 'I didn't have much to do with it. 'I just attended one meeting. In order to save the club I said we should sell some players. 'If not there would be no club. 'At this stage no bank is financing the club. No bank is willing to supply any funds. I have not been involved (in the transfers) I just attended one meeting. 'It was obvious the club must do something to stop the petition of the revenue. 'People at the club are working 24/7 to stop this petition.' Azougy said he understood the anxiety of fans but said the decision to sell Kaboul and Begovic was the right one. 'Every day I am praying that the club survives, for the 600 employees, I pray for the club,' he said. 'It is very, very hard. It was a very hard decision to sell both players (Kaboul and Begovic) but sometimes you have to make a hard decision to save the club"

I think the phrase that might explain this is sub judice...

When a charge is registered against a Company at Companies House, you have 21 days to lodge a certified copy of the loan instrument with Companies House. I think it is likely that an official receiver will shortly be appointed to lift the shadow that hangs over the administration procedure. This could be followed very quickly by the official liquidator...

Never tire of reading this one:

This part of the story is the most interesting to me: HMRC, now believed to be owed up to £18m in total by Portsmouth, is expected to challenge the validity of that mortgage and challenge the club to provide documentation. Because the club has not had its own bank account for several months, instead using a client account at the solicitors Fuglers, the Premier League has not had full oversight of all incoming and outgoing payments. I wonder who had control of the Portsmouth City Football Club's client account? Surely not Marc Jacob, the well known Spurs fan and formally a partner at Fuglers, before they parted company. My imagination is working overtime. Spurs....transfers....payments...incoming....outgoing...Redknapp...Storrie...Monaco...Offshore...Taxfree....

Is this what you saw?: Mark Jacob Mark graduated in government and politics from Essex university, he then proceeded to study for his common professional examination and law finals. Having qualified in 1994 Mark has specialised in commercial property and acts for property companies, high net worth individuals and foreign investors. Mark also specialises in secured lending and has acted for several major banking institutions. Away from the office, Mark is a keen footballer and keeps himself in shape by frequenting the gym at least twice a week. Mark is also a keen watcher of all sports including of course football and in particular his beloved Spurs. Indeed in 1999 Mark had a book about Spurs published which made The Sunday Times bestseller sports publications list for several weeks.

A what if.... ...IF some mug had offered Chanrai £25M for 90% of Portsmouth City Football Club, he would have taken it. He would hardly have claimed an additional £10M for the charge he had on Fratton....so, while they were in negotiation, the shares he was offering for sale, he was saying, were worth more than the £17M he was owed. As Storrie said on the 5th February, "Any purchaser of Pompey would be acquiring a bargain. "It's certainly good value. The club will go for nothing. The new owner would, though, have to take on the debt, and excluding the money owed to Sacha Gaydamak, the debts are down to £25m, and most of those are normal footballing debts." Just because the shares you took as security for the £17M loan are now worth f*** all because you placed the company in administration is your fault. You should have got a better lawyer than Marc Jacob to negotiate the security...

The points here, I think, are as follows: Falcondrone borrows £17M from Portpin which is secured by the shares, Falcondrone own, representing 90% of the share capital of Portsmouth City Football Club. Additionally, Portpin registers a charge on Fratton Park, owned by Portsmouth City Football Club. Falcondrone fails to repay Portpin so Portpin takes ownership of the shares in Portsmouth City Football Club. Portpin charge is satisfied by share transfer. Fratton still owned by Portsmouth City Football Club because Falcondrone borrowed the money from Portpin, not PCFC which is not in default for the original £17M. It was Falcondrone. Chanrai/Portpin is thus not a creditor of PCFC, but the majority shareholder. The additional charge on every asset, current and future of PCFC was registered by Marc Jacobs on the 6th January, when he realised that Chanrai/Portpin were exposed. Fuglers realise that Marc Jacobs has done something that is dodgy, whilst under a court order, following the WUO and they fire him. HMRC want to see the loan instruments that were deposited with Companies House that make Chanrai/Portpin think he/they can march into the sweetshop and empty the till... All pure conjecture...

There was an additional charge on Fratton Park, TBF...

Even the club itself has screwed up the Chanrai deal, by posting this. The security arrangement with Falcondrone Ltd is based on documents drawn up by Fuglers law firm as part of the original draw down of the loan, depositing with Mr Chainrai the original share certificate and a signed but undated share transfer in favour of Mr Chainrai, which could be dated and exercised in the event of default on the terms of the loan agreement. Muppets...

And I think my post above explains why Marc Jacob was fired by "his" law firm... Clueless...

Interesting News Article from this site. Balram Chainrai had exercised a clause in a loan agreement with Arab businessman that in case of not timely payment he would take over Al-Faraj’s 90 per cent ownership of the Portsmouth. However, his takeover may be challenged by the British lawyer Mark Jacob, appointed to the board by Al-Faraj, who argues that neither party complied with the loan agreement. The club itself confirmed the change of ownership. In the club statement it is said that the security arrangement with the BVI company was based on documents drawn up by law firm, owned by Jacob, as part of the original draw down of the loan, depositing with Mr. Chanrai the original share certificate and a signed share transfer with open date in favor of Mr. Chanrai, which could be dated and exercised in the event of default on the terms of the loan agreement.

Portsmouth News Reports suggest that HMRC has questioned whether Balram Chainrai had the legal right to put the club into administration

My wild guess is that HMRC are going to question the validity of Chanrai placing the club in administration. I have been banging on about this for a while, but the problem I have is that he either owns 90% of the shares in the company or is a creditor. IF he has taken possession of the shares in Portsmouth City Football Club, that suggests that he has satisfied his charge. He is then a shareholder, is holds shares worth f*** all. If he claims he is a secured creditor, then IMO, he had to prove the validity of his charge to the court before placing Pompey into administration. Just saying you're owed money is not enough. We'll see tomorrow, but I wouldn't be suprised that he made a big mistake taking ownership of the shares. I also think that he might have some problems proving the validity of his loan. The paperwork surronding Portpins loan to Al Mirage is bound to raise more questions than it answers.

Harry Redknapp is the living embodiement of the dangers of allowing a football manager to run a club. There are hundreds of great managers out there, but we'll never, ever find a better, more qualified owner...

Man United was a bigger rival for us than your lot for many years, as anyone that went to the Dell in the 70's will tell you. As far as Chanrai's plans and their legality, I'm sure we'll find out more over the next few months, but I see that Fratton Park still belongs to Portsmouth City Football Club Limited with a Portpin charge on it, despite Chanrai saying it belonged to him and he was leasing it to the club for £1M a year. You lot really do believe, on a regular basis, every morsel of sh !t that's fed you from Fratton, don't you. What a clueless bunch....and you'll never learn. From John Deacon, through Terry Venables and now Gaydamak, you sailors get a regular bumming and still take it with a toothless grin...

Thanks Ron. Nice to see something posted by someone who remembers. It just shows how quickly football can change. In the 70's Man U were a second division and lower first division side...

The assumption that Pompey is our great rival ignores the history of our club and is, IMHO, just plain wrong. Pompey were never our rivals, in my lifetime, nor anyone elses. Our true rival for many years was Manchester United and that fact just shows how far we have fallen. The good thing is, I can see, again in my lifetime, that rivalry resuming... ...and Pompey. My feelings towards them at the moment are pretty close to the feeling I have when I scrape dog sh !t off my shoe. Glad to be rid and my only concern is the lingering smell...

I really think I should start reading the Telegraph and give up trying to be a journo, Benjii. It seems my "story" was reported in yesterdays paper here. Seems like these guys know more about asset stripping and tax avoidance than I ever will...

I would bet a pound to a pinch of sh !t that the subsequent charge, following the date the winding up petition was served, was a modification of the original charge related to the original loan, not fresh money. I don't know many lenders that would be happy to lend new money to a club that is subject to a winding up order...

For those that are interested, here is the difference between a mortgage and a charge, from the Companies House website: 1. What are mortgages and charges? A charge is security for the payment of a debt or other obligation that does not pass 'property' or any right to possession to the person to whom the charge is given. A mortgage is security for the payment of a debt or other obligation that passes 'property' but no right to possession to the person to whom the mortgage is given. The original particulars filed by Portpin Limited with Companies House which was created on the 6th October described the loan instrument as a "Charge Deed".