Weston Saint

Agree, I have been saying this since Monday afternoon

I do not accept the comment "we are lucky to have a club" That breeds mediocrity. I like others were relieved Mr Liebherr came along but that is now history. For those that attend matches regularly they can see were were far from a constantly good side even at Div1 standards and the buck stops with the Manager. He had the resources both before the summer and winter window closed. He was aware of what was required. Progress was being made after an understandable stutter at the start and at one point we were 9 points from a playoff place. That position has deteriorated and that is why questions are being asked. We seemed to be going backwards in league terms. Now the latest players have had time to bed in and we are getting excellent results on good pitches. An obvious weakness has now come to the top of the priority pile. We struggle as a team and individually on poor pitches. That needs to be addressed. Top 6 is probably a step too far but still possible. What Mr Cortese and some of the more enlightened and critical supporters will want is a demonstration that we are able to constantly produce results on all tyes of pitches and against all teams in the division. It looks to be coming together but Mr Cortese is likely to be less patient than many of the supporters.

There were over 600 tickets unsold this morning according to Solent Sports News

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/mar/03/portsmouth-takeover-intermarket-digger Fear not, Pompey fans, for your deliverance is near. The latest name to have been linked with Portsmouth is none other than the Intermarket Group. Some will remember them as the city financiers that were declared saviours of West Ham United last October. But they failed to come up with the money and the club was sold to David Sullivan and David Gold, who did. Digger can reveal that they were also the men behind the £25m plan at Notts County, promising the funds to build a new stadium and a casino. They failed to come up with the money and the club was sold to Ray Trew. And it seems that the noise of another club going through financial collapse has brought Intermarket running. Its chairman, David Byrne, has approached the administrator, Andrew Andronikou, about buying the club. Byrne said: "I can neither confirm it nor deny it." But Byrne has his reasons for not sealing the deals with either the Hammers or Notts. "If it was not for our chief executive, Jim Byrne, dying, we would have done the deal with West Ham," he said. "And my partner offered a £500,000 non-refundable cheque to [Notts' then chairman] Peter Trembling to give us a week to do the deal. Sven‑Goran Eriksson was really keen but unfortunately Peter went and did the deal with Trew." Andronikou said: "Until I'm shown proof of funds and I'm happy with the calibre of the individuals no one will come into the club." Very sensible.

Echo now running a story that announcement on Friday. Two overseas players. Possibly Katich for early part of the season and another for T20 to play alongside Afridi Briggs and Dawson will provide the main spin attack

Thanks Guys, saw that yesterday but the press tend to cherry pick.

Sorry why is this a sticky? I have found no comment helpful or enlightening. We have a match thread.

Is the court transcript available online?

Heard on Solent this morning signing is in doubt through Mendis increasing unavailability. Hants have a new target whom they have offered a contract but as he has not signed yet they are not saying who. As the report on Solent came from Kevan James it has a high level of credibility.

What a game to miss but I have just got in from a long standing dinner appointment. Still I was kept up to date and good to see some of the reports from those like S-Clarke and Fitzhugh Fella.

Yep, same man

On Saturday I saw a picture of TCWTB discarded in the urinal......yep, I did

He swans around the Rose Bowl as if he ownes it. Spends a fair bit of money there and I assume he is in corporate at FP. Not liked by some.

Wow, powerful stuff. Cannot see them getting out of this one. After that???.......If Chainrai continues to fund until a buyer is found the court might be persuaded that Administration is the correct course but appoint a new Administrator. I doubt HMRC will oppose that, but I expect them to ask the court to re-open the suspended Winding up petition and study the SoA in more detail before any decision is made. That may be the reason for the 1 day hearing rather than a couple of hours.

Now confirmed. Papers to be lodges by 12th March - Hearing week commencing 15th March listed for 1 day.

It's your interpretation that is wrong. The Judge may not be siding with HMRC but he is seriously concerned that Pompey do not have the funding. He will have them all back in a week or so.

Took me 3 attempts. Not posting my update though

I have posted that it is wrong - it was in answer to my comment. I am Ron Tic

So is this statement wrong - Statutory requirement that incumbent owner or Directors that file for admin have to pay the bill

Judges summing up will be the interesting part of today

Chainrai's lawyer Ashok Patel is in court

Agree, this looks to be setting the agenda for the next few weeks. PFC Administrator will not have all the information at his finger tips. In fact he will argue that as he did not know the full reason for the hearing he will need time to answer the courts questions. I am also expecting an Ace. Bet it is something in the SoA

No date. The rules of the PL do not have a cut off date

For those who wonder about the case of Wimbledon Football Club: can “super-priority” creditors be paid ahead of preferential creditors? The Football League Limited (the “League”) As the holder of one share (the “Share”) in the League and accordingly a member of the League, Wimbledon Football Club (“Wimbledon”) was bound by its rules. Wimbledon was in administration and wanted to exit administration via a company voluntary arrangement. However, under the rules of the League, the administrators could only sell Wimbledon’s undertaking and the Share at an advantageous price if the purchaser paid specified non-preferential (“super-priority”) creditors in full. The arrangement The proposal (which was approved by the creditors) was that a purchaser agreed to buy Wimbledon’s undertaking and assets (including the Share) and assume its obligation to pay the “super-priority” creditors in full. The proceeds of the sale would be used to pay preferential creditors 30p in every £1. The Inland Revenue (a preferential creditor of Wimbledon, as this was a pre-Enterprise Act case) opposed the voluntary arrangement. The result The High Court held that it was possible for a third party to pay certain non-preferential creditors ahead of preferential creditors out of its own “free” money. The particular arrangement did not infringe s4(4) Insolvency Act 1986, which provides that any proposal under which “any preferential debt of the company is to be paid otherwise in priority to such of its debts as are not preferential debts” shall not be approved by the creditors, because the payment came out of the purchaser’s own pocket and did not reduce the assets available to the creditors. The court further remarked that it does not matter that the payment was made “on behalf of” or “at the instance of” or “for the benefit of'' Wimbledon. Scope to evade preferential claims? The judge made it perfectly clear that the ruling does not give any scope for evading the principle that preferential creditors rank in priority to the general body of unsecured creditors and that nothing in the judgment can or should be taken as encouragement for an arrangement to defeat preferential claims. …it is possible for a third party to pay certain non-preferential creditors ahead of preferential creditors out of its own “free” money… 1 Inland Revenue Commissioners v (1) The Wimbledon Football Club Ltd (2) Martin Gilbert Ellis and (3) James Earp [2004]

They have already challenged it and lost. Appeal (or leave to appeal) and Supreme Court (then House of Lords) was their option. Unless there was a point of Law mistake then they cannot challenge again unless something fundumental changes. Common Law has been established on this point. Challenge will be as regard the correctness of the Debencher issue and Chainrai's right as a secure creditor of PFC. Last throw of the dice by HMRC and one that could well be the winning throw.