Pompey Takeover Saga

So HMRC are arguing that Pompey have been guilty of tax evasion - will/can they pursue criminal charges regardless of the outcome of this hearing?

Er, is this a new one?

''Chris:

Mr Mitchell went on to criticise another 'sham' he alleged Pompey used to avoid paying tax.

This concerned money paid into players' employment benefit trusts in what he described as 'tax havens'.

He said: 'The Revenue says these are disguised payments of salaries on which PAYE should have been paid.' ''

''chris:

Mr mitchell went on to criticise another 'sham' he alleged pompey used to avoid paying tax.

This concerned money paid into players' employment benefit trusts in what he described as 'tax havens'.

He said: 'the revenue says these are disguised payments of salaries on which paye should have been paid.' ''

wtf!

Implications of HMRC winning this appeal...

Someone in public gallery snores himself awake at #portsmouth administrators, taxman case at High Court. Admins say if they lose, club dead

Did any of the pompey players actually ever receive a normal taxed salary??

Sorry to be thick but isn't the purpose of this hearing to challenge the validity of the CVA? I appreciate I have no understanding of such matters but it seems that they are throwing everythingthey can find at the Judge, will he not just sweep this aside as it doesn't apply to the agreement or can further action be taken if needed?

Mr Mitchell

Is this the guy DBP was claiming to be the "Saints fan" heading up the case for HMRC a few days ago?

Whatever, COYHMRC.

Pompey image rights payments due last season: 3.6m. Estimated profit on retail sales: 337,000. So players being paid 10x what rights worth

about 1 hour ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®

Quite damning...

He looks well tanned from his holiday.

I wrote in as Riquelme saying "Goodluck lads. I will be joining you guys next week! I look forward to playing in your new stadium! Can't wait to hear the roar of 44,000 bestest fans in the world!

Yeah it didn't get shown....

I think HMRC are clutching at straws a bit to be honest and they seem to have changed their argument recently as well (or maybe clarified it). I think Lampitt being in charge will make a big difference and that HMRC will lose today.

''[Comment From Rob F Rob F : ]

I think it is highly unethical and inconsistent what HMRC are striving to achieve from this case, HMRC accepted a minor % from Crystal Palace in contrast to ourselves. Can they not see that liquidating the club will only be a regressive strategy from future PAYE & NI that HMRC will earn from our club, pathetic ''

Quite damning...

But image rights is not purely a merchandise activity. Its about foreign tv money as well.

I think HMRC are clutching at straws a bit to be honest and they seem to have changed their argument recently as well (or maybe clarified it). I think Lampitt being in charge will make a big difference and that HMRC will lose today.

FFS. The judgement is on Thrusday.

Foreign TV money is handled by the League, not the club.

An employees image rights are for the club to use in its merchandising, not the leagues.

I sent in:

" I'm sure POOR-tsmouth will be okay "

Surprisingly - it didn't get posted.

But image rights is not purely a merchandise activity. Its about foreign tv money as well.

But the TV money comes in via the PL not direct from foreign TV so as far as the club us concerned it is domestic income.

But image rights is not purely a merchandise activity. Its about foreign tv money as well.

1) Why were Pompey paying significantly more in image rights than everyone else in the Premier League?

2) Are you suggesting the images of Pompey players are worth twice as much as Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea players?

3) Why does your theory of foreign TV money not apply to every other club and rank the clubs of the Premier League in order of their players worth? How come Pompey come out on top?

4) Did Pompey earn more from foreign TV deals than other Premier League clubs? Why was that?

It is sham so Pompey could get players they couldn't otherwise afford.

But image rights is not purely a merchandise activity. Its about foreign tv money as well.

But your club will have to show evidence that £30m of image rights coverage were generated in that time.

But image rights is not purely a merchandise activity. Its about foreign tv money as well.

All TV deals are negotiated by the Premier League.

 

Are you suggesting the images of Pompey players are worth twice as much as Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea players?

 

It is sham so Pompey could get players they couldn't otherwise afford.

Precisely this

Sorry to be thick but isn't the purpose of this hearing to challenge the validity of the CVA? I appreciate I have no understanding of such matters but it seems that they are throwing everythingthey can find at the Judge, will he not just sweep this aside as it doesn't apply to the agreement or can further action be taken if needed?

Could it be that Mr. Mitchell is reinforcing HMRC's position that PCFC's tax affairs are "complex" , and that it wasn't appropriate for the chairman of the CVA vote meeting to arbitrarily fix the amount that he thought was probably about right?

Why were Pompey paying significantly more in image rights than everyone else in the Premier League?

 

Are you suggesting the images of Pompey players are worth twice as much as Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea players?

 

Why does your theory of foreign TV money not apply to every other club and rank the clubs of the Premier League in order of their players worth? How come Pompey come out on top?

 

It is sham so Pompey could get players they couldn't otherwise afford.

so what you're saying is: CHEATS!

go Hayling Jerry!

But image rights is not purely a merchandise activity. Its about foreign tv money as well.

True but the duty is now on AA to prove the other 90% exists

Finally, one of my posts got through:

''[Comment From Hayling Jerry Hayling Jerry : ]

The image rights are simple, we paid more than twice the amount than Chelsea, Man U etc. Can anyone genuinely say that the amount we paid is representative to the value of the players overseas? Is Wayne Rooney less marketable in the Far East than, say, Defoe or Nugent? ''

i cant wait til pompeys lawyers have their say, cant wait for the total lollage at what the defence is going to be

wtf!

This is why HMRC are going after Glasgow Rangers. Set up a trust. Pay money into trust. Trustees then decide to pay player a large amount of dosh - well just because he's a nice guy. I know Celtic were told not to do it (partly because they had Brian Quinn ex Deputy Head of the Bank of England as Chairman). Is this not the reason why Arsenal had to pay a large amount of dosh back to HMRC a few years back

Could it be that Mr. Mitchell is reinforcing HMRC's position that PCFC's tax affairs are "complex" , and that it wasn't appropriate for the chairman of the CVA vote meeting to arbitrarily fix the amount that he thought was probably about right?

Thanks Hutch

This thread makes much beter reading than the main board at the moment

Yeah, the main bored is Troll Central at the moment.

Thanks Hutch

 

This thread makes much beter reading than the main board at the moment

maybe that's why there are more on here than the main board!

This is why HMRC are going after Glasgow Rangers. Set up a trust. Pay money into trust. Trustees then decide to pay player a large amount of dosh - well just because he's a nice guy. I know Celtic were told not to do it (partly because they had Brian Quinn ex Deputy Head of the Bank of England as Chairman). Is this not the reason why Arsenal had to pay a large amount of dosh back to HMRC a few years back

Well I never.

the news wrote

Chris: The case is continuing with more legal argument.

they sent portsmouths finest then!

insightful reporting from the news as ever. Really keeping us up to date with the courtroom cut and thrust

The case is continuing with more legal argument.

The EBT thing had a ruling about six months ago in a case involving an ordinary company, but it set a precedent. HMRC were ****ed off that companies were setting up these Trusts which just so happened to pay/loan money to high earning executives who then said it was not taxable as it didn't come directly from their employer and was 'given' to them by a third party. Trust would be set up in a no Tax island. Again the issue was also like image rights in that HMRC got the feeling that companies were starting to rip the arse out of it and pay more and more of their money through these trusts. Glasgow Rangers have a nightmare on their hands if EBTs are brought up again and Pompey done for it. Their exposure is in the tens of millions potentially.

Seems to me the biggest loser so far today is Peter Storrie. I wouldn't like to be in his shoes.

Oh, and when did Sol Campbell become a non-dom foreigner for image rights purposes?

insightful reporting from the news as ever. Really keeping us up to date with the courtroom cut and thrust

Lol that is what i thought. What did they think that a court case was going to be about.

I'm another one of the thick ones on here. But is HMRC saying that bsides the image rights there is also this Trust thingey. Allowing for both (or either) it will put HMRC over the 25% ?

I'm another one of the thick ones on here. But is HMRC saying that bsides the image rights there is also this Trust thingey. Allowing for both (or either) it will put HMRC over the 25% ?

The answer is we don't know. I believe HMRC said that taking the image rights into account they are owed 30M. I don't think that figure included anything to do with these trusts. Maybe that is where the extra 4M to take them up to the 34M they claimed at the CVA comes from? Assuming nothing else changes 30M would not be over 25%.

insightful reporting from the news as ever. Really keeping us up to date with the courtroom cut and thrust

oi - this court case is for our benefit not yours - you'll be fed what scraps are on offer - we'll take the juicy bit thanks, HMRC 1 Pompey 0 - coming up !

The answer is we don't know. I believe HMRC said that taking the image rights into account they are owed 30M. I don't think that figure included anything to do with these trusts. Maybe that is where the extra 4M to take them up to the 34M they claimed at the CVA comes from? Assuming nothing else changes 30M would not be over 25%.

Don't forget Mitchell's opening statement:

This appeal is not about precise figures, it's about principle.

Won't print my innocuous questions & observations...am posting as bluetruth...now there's a contradictory word!

The answer is we don't know. I believe HMRC said that taking the image rights into account they are owed 30M. I don't think that figure included anything to do with these trusts. Maybe that is where the extra 4M to take them up to the 34M they claimed at the CVA comes from? Assuming nothing else changes 30M would not be over 25%.

Try looking at it from the other angle, too much emphasise is being put on the 'HMRC' debt. Ask where did all the new Poopey debt come from, since the SofA was submitted by Poopey at their last appearence.

This is why HMRC are going after Glasgow Rangers. Set up a trust. Pay money into trust. Trustees then decide to pay player a large amount of dosh - well just because he's a nice guy. I know Celtic were told not to do it (partly because they had Brian Quinn ex Deputy Head of the Bank of England as Chairman). Is this not the reason why Arsenal had to pay a large amount of dosh back to HMRC a few years back

Seriously having lived in Scotland I can tell you I can understand how the Old Firm can have big image right payments to make. Both Clubs easily have as big a world wide support as all but maybe three or four of the premiership clubs. The question for me is always around residency. If you are a UK resident you have to pay tax on global earnings not just UK earnings. The only way I can see this working is if you set up an off-shore company the monies are paid to a company not an individual. If the company holds the money they players would not pay tax as individuals. When their careers finish they then become non-resident and take the cash hence they are taxed under local laws, not UK laws. Can understand how that works with foreign players but not the likes of Sol Campbell. Even offshore companies though are subject to with holding taxes. There is play around wrtiing off of expenses but seriously I cannot see this being significantly profitable to make it worth while

Question for the legal bods on here that know more about it. Is it likely that after all this introductions we will have witnesses called, etc. Hoping that AA will be given the chance to see if he can fit both feet in his mouth!

Ask also, who claimed to be the owner then not to be the owner, and now waits on the sidelines to be the owner, having paid for the administrator out of his own pocket. Let us not forget these things.

Try looking at it from the other angle, too much emphasise is being put on the 'HMRC' debt. Ask where did all the new Poopey debt come from, since the SofA was submitted by Poopey at their last appearence.

Patience grasshopper! 48 hours to go yet LOL

Patience grasshopper! 48 hours to go yet LOL

This is the internet equivalent of tantric sex (I would imagine)

Patience grasshopper! 48 hours to go yet LOL

I was responding to all those who are thinking this is all about image rights, when that is just the iceing on the cake.

If HMRC do as theysaidand end by 1530hrs, surely they must come to the nitty gritty soon, or is that it? Or does the relevant documentation previously submitted be admissible for decision purposes. Or was that if they didn't go to lunch?