Weston Saint

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.

Was this link ever posted? Just checked their web site. His details have been removed http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/feb/26/portsmouth-mark-jacob-ali-al-faraj

Forename(s) Alastair Hubert Norris Sex Male Decorations kt (2007) Date of Birth 17/12/1950 Foretitle(s) Hon Mr Justice; Sir Surname NORRIS Style The Hon Mr Justice Norris Recreations sailing The Hon Mr Justice Norris's Professional CareerCareer called to the Bar Lincoln's Inn 1973, QC 1997, asst recorder 1998, recorder 2000, specialist circuit judge Chancery Court (Midland Circuit) 2001-07, judge of the High Court of Justice (Chancery Div) 2007-;

Inland Revenue Commissioners v *Wimbledon FC (2004), challenged football creditor rule and lost

No it is not who you think, Norm. I can say that with authority

It is when your next game is the day after next!

Cortese is a clever and experiened business man on a mission and will let no one stand in his way. He will support anything and anyone who helps him achieve that mission and the pot of gold that goes with it. He is ruthless, but from reports fair and sensible on business matters. He lacks "football" experience and that, in my opinion, is what is causing the problem. We are lucky to have Mr Liebherr and his financial backing. We are equally lucky to have Mr Cortese with his business know how. We now need a an experienced Director of Fooball to act as a buffer in my opinion.

They were in for tactical talk this morning as far as I know. Nothing more.

Wrong. Lallana is 90% or more sure to stay next season.

The points issue is a non starter but just like Saints did, it will be persued until someone realises it is not going to happen. -9 is going to happen. As for PL dishing out all the TV and Parachute payments in advance, let us remember it is going to those who deserve it, the Creditors. Whoever buys the skeleton left will have a healthy club living within it's means but dropping like a stone for a few years. We had just about hit rock bottom, PFC still have a long way to fall

Another interesting point when transfer money point raised by Richardson. "I am looking at the paperwork for all individual transfers. The money reported in the press about how much PFC got are higher than the club got. Richardson said "Let's take Peter Crouch as an example reported as sold for £10M. Are you saying PFC only got £5m for example" Something like that said the Administrator. Should be some interesting revelations in the next week or so. The Administrator seems to come over as a media whore and quite happy to hang out Pompeys dirty washing in public