Pompey Takeover Saga

[holepuncture]

FM Saints Researcher ‏@MatthewLeGod

@bigadamsport Adam, why didn't you ask Trevor Birch about the possible penalty 4 diluting of the 2010 CVA with a new CVA?

 

Adam Blackmore ‏@bigadamsport

@MatthewLeGod I don't know if the League has a penalty ruling for it -unless you are?This decision was not an exception to the FL rules

 

FM Saints Researcher ‏@MatthewLeGod

@bigadamsport The FL would be setting a dangerous precedent if it doesn't act. Otherwise clubs can offload huge debts with little punishment

 

Adam Blackmore ‏@bigadamsport

@MatthewLeGod I don't know the answer. But your point seems valid about CVA's in general

 

FM Saints Researcher ‏@MatthewLeGod

@bigadamsport Club A doesn't agree a CVA, Club B says we'll pay 20p in £ but then doesn't. Club A gets punished but club B doesn't. Seems wrong

 

FM Saints Researcher ‏@MatthewLeGod

@bigadamsport Would be interesting to hear what TB or FL thought of the subject. Will u speak to Birch again soon?

 

 

Good Day

 

I am writing to you requesting clarification on this twitter message from the BBC:

 

BBC Solent Sport ‏@solentsport

 

#pompey administrators PKF confirm that Football League have assured Pompey will start season in League One - & without points penalty

 

I would like to point out that I was a victim in the previous Portsmouth 2010 administration, and as such I no longer run my freelance photography business as a result of the clubs collapse. A few thousand pounds may not mean much in the world of football but to a one man band like myself it is enough to ruin you. I now work in a shop, but at least I managed to keep my mortgage repayments up.

 

Now, as you are aware us creditors were pushed (I wont go as far as blackmailed) into accepting a CVA which payed a dividend of 20% of the original debt. The payment schedule was over a period of five years, however our first installment was pushed back to 2012. This was never going to solve the problems this administration had placed on my business, as a sole trader I knew it would finish me off either way and as such I simply voted with little care for myself.

 

Whilst I found it incredibly disturbing and deeply insulting to see the club continuing to sanction player purchases and associated salaries, I understand football and the nature of the beast of remaining competitive so it was something I had to accept, even though I was unable to continue my freelance work with the club.

 

To see the club go back into administration again this season was simply staggering, and discovering they had racked up more dozens of millions of debt, whilst never getting round to paying mine or any other poor souls from the creditors meetings a penny of our dividend, left me in a state of almost shock.

 

I am currently receiving correspondence from PKF regarding the 2012 administration (despite having to wind my business up), and I am told the original 2010 CVA debt will now be diluted into a 2012 CVA, and as such the 20% dividend will now be 20% of 20%. As a result my original debt in full will have gone from approximately £3000 to £120, and more importantly without my consent this time round.

 

That is absolutely scandalous and I cant help but think that if I tried to behave like that, I would be in prison by now!

 

As I have mentioned, I had to wind my business (and dreams) up so the debts owed to me are irrelevant what ever percentage they finally decide this time round.

 

My concern is for other local traders that are now suffering as a result of this, I believe the sporting authorities have a duty of care to them should one of their member clubs fail to provide a duty of care.

 

How on earth can the club avoid sporting sanctions for behaving like this? They have failed on a CVA, and are now doing it all again. My debt never got close to being repaid at the 20% I agreed to.

 

Please provide an explanation as to how a football club can take circa £130m of debt, turn it into around £30m via CVA MKI... only to build that debt up to £50m and run it back down to £10m without creditors consent in a CVA MKII, and do all this without further sporting sanctions?

 

Surely it is the same as not achieving a CVA? The CVA MKI never even got started, not one penny paid, before it failed. That is not the agreement we made in 2010, therefore the CVA was invalid.

 

I sincerely hope you can understand quite how much distress this has cause myself and my family.

 

Please clarify your statement as currently its rather sickening to people like myself whose lives have been totally destroyed by this circus on the south coast.

 

Regards

[Winchester Red]

You will get an auto reply to this saying nothing can be said until the situation becomes clear... so in the meantime what we do know is:

 

1. Just by still being in Admin, if they are not liquidated and as long as they still have their golden share their will be no addditional points penalty

2. Should they exit admin at any time without a CVA in place a further points penalty will be applied next season

3. Ambiguity still exists over the the simple fact that they have not yet paid a penny towards the 2010 CVA. If the 2010 creditors agree to the 2012 CVA then it will be argued that the 2010 CVA has NOT failed and so no further action would be possible. If the 2010 creditors do NOT agree to the new 2012 CVA then its likely that

2012 CVA will not be possible and see point 2.

4. If 2012 CVA IS approved even if 2010 CVA creditors vote against it (because Chinney holds the aces) then it could be argued that 2010 CVA has failed - BUT it all likelhood will not be classified as such by the FL as the 2012 CVA has in effect superceeded it and depsite teh 2010 creditors having been shafted again, I doubt there is a legal way in which any sanction could be imposed within the current FL rules.

 

 

Confused? Yep

FL rules ineffective and unjust? Yep

Pompey getting away with it? Yep

Public know the truth about the fact they have not paid a single penny to CVA 2010? Nope

Media highlighting this fact? Nope

FL likely to close the loophole to avoid this happening again? Yep, but likely too late to catch the TDCSBs out.....

 

That ladies and Gentleman is the grim and unjust reality IMHO.....

 

 

but i have emailed the FL to attempt further clarification....

 

They could always apply a deduction in the spirit of the game if there is no exact ruling in place. I seem to remember that being done before in a completely dissimilar situation....

[Winchester Red]

Good letter Holepuncher

 

Certainly gets to the heart of the matter in a way the every day man can understand.

 

I doubt it's straight forward enough for the average Portsmouth supporter to understand though and I expect the FL will stop at the words 'Good Day'

[SaintRichmond]

Good Day

 

I am writing to you requesting clarification on this twitter message from the BBC:

 

BBC Solent Sport ‏@solentsport

 

#pompey administrators PKF confirm that Football League have assured Pompey will start season in League One - & without points penalty

 

I would like to point out that I was a victim in the previous Portsmouth 2010 administration, and as such I no longer run my freelance photography business as a result of the clubs collapse. A few thousand pounds may not mean much in the world of football but to a one man band like myself it is enough to ruin you. I now work in a shop, but at least I managed to keep my mortgage repayments up.

 

Now, as you are aware us creditors were pushed (I wont go as far as blackmailed) into accepting a CVA which payed a dividend of 20% of the original debt. The payment schedule was over a period of five years, however our first installment was pushed back to 2012. This was never going to solve the problems this administration had placed on my business, as a sole trader I knew it would finish me off either way and as such I simply voted with little care for myself.

 

Whilst I found it incredibly disturbing and deeply insulting to see the club continuing to sanction player purchases and associated salaries, I understand football and the nature of the beast of remaining competitive so it was something I had to accept, even though I was unable to continue my freelance work with the club.

 

To see the club go back into administration again this season was simply staggering, and discovering they had racked up more dozens of millions of debt, whilst never getting round to paying mine or any other poor souls from the creditors meetings a penny of our dividend, left me in a state of almost shock.

 

I am currently receiving correspondence from PKF regarding the 2012 administration (despite having to wind my business up), and I am told the original 2010 CVA debt will now be diluted into a 2012 CVA, and as such the 20% dividend will now be 20% of 20%. As a result my original debt in full will have gone from approximately £3000 to £120, and more importantly without my consent this time round.

 

That is absolutely scandalous and I cant help but think that if I tried to behave like that, I would be in prison by now!

 

As I have mentioned, I had to wind my business (and dreams) up so the debts owed to me are irrelevant what ever percentage they finally decide this time round.

 

My concern is for other local traders that are now suffering as a result of this, I believe the sporting authorities have a duty of care to them should one of their member clubs fail to provide a duty of care.

 

How on earth can the club avoid sporting sanctions for behaving like this? They have failed on a CVA, and are now doing it all again. My debt never got close to being repaid at the 20% I agreed to.

 

Please provide an explanation as to how a football club can take circa £130m of debt, turn it into around £30m via CVA MKI... only to build that debt up to £50m and run it back down to £10m without creditors consent in a CVA MKII, and do all this without further sporting sanctions?

 

Surely it is the same as not achieving a CVA? The CVA MKI never even got started, not one penny paid, before it failed. That is not the agreement we made in 2010, therefore the CVA was invalid.

 

I sincerely hope you can understand quite how much distress this has cause myself and my family.

 

Please clarify your statement as currently its rather sickening to people like myself whose lives have been totally destroyed by this circus on the south coast.

 

Regards

 

 

BANG THIS OFF TO THE FOOTBALL LEAGUE - 1000 TIMES, AND THEN 1000 TIMES MORE

 

Send it to your friends for them to do the same

 

It's about time those dinasaurs at the FL were MADE to sit up and take notice of what has, and WILL happen again to the (with respect) the minnow creditors dragged down by the shambles of what is a pathetic, evil apology of a Football Club.

[trousers]

FM Saints Researcher ‏@MatthewLeGod

@bigadamsport Adam, why didn't you ask Trevor Birch about the possible penalty 4 diluting of the 2010 CVA with a new CVA?

 

Adam Blackmore ‏@bigadamsport

@MatthewLeGod I don't know if the League has a penalty ruling for it -unless you are?This decision was not an exception to the FL rules

 

FM Saints Researcher ‏@MatthewLeGod

@bigadamsport The FL would be setting a dangerous precedent if it doesn't act. Otherwise clubs can offload huge debts with little punishment

 

Adam Blackmore ‏@bigadamsport

@MatthewLeGod I don't know the answer. But your point seems valid about CVA's in general

 

FM Saints Researcher ‏@MatthewLeGod

@bigadamsport Club A doesn't agree a CVA, Club B says we'll pay 20p in £ but then doesn't. Club A gets punished but club B doesn't. Seems wrong

 

FM Saints Researcher ‏@MatthewLeGod

@bigadamsport Would be interesting to hear what TB or FL thought of the subject. Will u speak to Birch again soon?

 

I find it incredible that it doesn't even seem to occur to a decent journalist to pursue this line of enquiry with those involved in this particular case.

 

I know that our nut job tendencies make us more up to speed with what happened with CVA1 but for the journalist community to airbrush it en masse is baffling.

 

How many interviews does there have to be with any of the main characters in this farce before a journo asks an insightful question on behalf of the small creditors who are in the same position now as they would have been had there been no CVA1 in the first place?

 

Journos should be asking the football league why their punishment system(s ) are based on intentions (suspect or otherwise) rather than the outcome of those intentions.

 

Edit: FFS

[dvaughanwilliams]

I seriously struggle how they would let this happen, it would set an incredibly dangerous precedent... AA and Chainrai could become powerful football consultants, advising clubs on how to shake off hundreds of millions of pounds of debt with minimal penalty...

 

Man Utd could go into admin knowing they can handle a little ten point deduction... AA drafts up one of his world famous CVAs full of caveats, and 18 months later repeat the process: another little ten pointer (half way through the season, easy top 4 again)... AA comes back in and melts CVA1 into CVA2, taking a billion pounds of debt and turning it into just a few dozen million!

 

They cant dish out severe punishments to clubs that fail to achieve a CVA, when clubs that achieve one a later on fail the f*cker dont get punishment at all... its exactly the same thing just doing it the pompey way is deceitful and dishonest.

 

If the FL go soft on this issue I will mount a full campaign against them and the cheats... I want them severly punished for this, if only for the cheated charities and small creditors.

 

The V of CVA is particularly important here. You wouldn't get away with it repeatedly. The creditors would vote it down. Given the experience of the first CVA, can you imagine the creditors accepting a ridiculous deal like the first one?

 

It will be interesting to see if Trevor Birch gives the football creditors a vote in the upcoming CVA, considering that they don't stand to lose any of the money that they are owed. The last CVA only just got passed as a result of their votes and AA was criticised for allowing them to vote.

Edited 30 May, 2012 by dvaughanwilliams

[saint si]

The V of CVA is particularly important here. You wouldn't get away with it repeatedly. The creditors would vote it down. Given the experience of the first CVA, can you imagine the creditors accepting a ridiculous deal like the first one?

 

And that's also why they offer 20% rather than say 1% or 0.1% or 0.000001%.

 

But creditors vote yes to these things because they are told the alternative is much worse.... and in the case of football clubs, that is even more pronounced. Without the golden share, there is bugger all left of any value. Even the stadium (for clubs that actually own one) is worth very little as a stadium once the club disappears. The football creditors rule and parachute payments help to create this "lock in", and this is essentially the reason that HMRC's challenge to the original CVA got thrown out - i.e. the normal creditors had better prospects in a CVA with 20% where football creditors got 100% than in any other scenario. We all know how laughable that is.

 

And don't forget, in that first admin, completely unbelievably, the football creditors got included in the voting. So they were essentially voting to get their 100%, and at the same time voting for everyone else to get 20%. The figures are on here somewhere, but without them HMRC would have had enough to block the CVA...

[pedg]

The V of CVA is particularly important here. You wouldn't get away with it repeatedly. The creditors would vote it down. Given the experience of the first CVA, can you imagine the creditors accepting a ridiculous deal like the first one?

 

Most of the creditors from the first CVA have probably given up the will to live on seeing anything from that.

[trousers]

And that's also why they offer 20% rather than say 1% or 0.1% or 0.000001%.

 

But creditors vote yes to these things because they are told the alternative is much worse.... and in the case of football clubs, that is even more pronounced. Without the golden share, there is bugger all left of any value. Even the stadium (for clubs that actually own one) is worth very little as a stadium once the club disappears. The football creditors rule and parachute payments help to create this "lock in", and this is essentially the reason that HMRC's challenge to the original CVA got thrown out - i.e. the normal creditors had better prospects in a CVA with 20% where football creditors got 100% than in any other scenario. We all know how laughable that is.

 

And don't forget, in that first admin, completely unbelievably, the football creditors got included in the voting. So they were essentially voting to get their 100%, and at the same time voting for everyone else to get 20%. The figures are on here somewhere, but without them HMRC would have had enough to block the CVA...

 

Will the same happen for CVA2...i.e. the football creditors get to vote again....100% for them and 2p of 20p of £1 for the mugs (aka non-football creditors)

[Joesaint]

OK written to the FL using some of the questions here, (hope I have not made a tit of myself) here is what I have e mailed;

 

Hello,

Heard this;

"BBC Solent Sport ‏@solentsport

To clarify statement from PKF - #pompey will start next season without further points deduction even if they are still in admin"

 

I understand that failing to reach a CVA, would mean a points deduction (I believe Leeds were deducted 15 points), surely the Portsmouth 2010 CVA now has to be classed as failed, with the dept having to go to a second CVA.

 

What I do not understand, is failing to exit with a CVA means points deduction, but reaching a CVA but ignoring it, to add onto a second CVA, after another admin does not.

 

Case A Leeds owed about 35 million I think but could not agree a CVA.

Case B Portsmouth owed about 120 million but gained a CVA to pay back 20%'.

 

Both Case A and B do not pay back anything,

 

Case A has 15 point penalty.

 

Case B increases their debt still further, build up extra dept by signing extra new players, not paying charities on top of other depts; has a 10 point penalty for second admin, within a couple of years. The first CVA now part of the second CVA so they will only be able to get a tiny fraction of money owed, not sure this is fair at all.

 

A small local business owed around £10,000 for example, would get £2000 from the first CVA. Now I have no idea of what the next CVA would get creditors but if it would be 20% again they would only get £400. I believe HMRC were owed 17 million, on a second CVA at 20% would mean they may only get £68,000. No wonder they are not happy with the football creditors rule, that I must confess is a joke and not done any favors to football at all, unless you can tell me otherwise.

 

As I believe the football league should be fair, can you please explain how two clubs can fail a CVA but only one has a points penalty for it?

 

Thank you for your time

 

Joe

 

PS, wrote this very quickly and just wanted to make the point, I understand I do not understand all the facts, and may be miss-informed. I love football and want the best for the game.

[trousers]

Most of the creditors from the first CVA have probably given up the will to live on seeing anything from that.

 

But, what gets me, is why NONE of the CVA1 creditors are shouting about this scam from the rooftops? Why is it only us nutjobs that appear to care about companies acting honourably?

[trousers]

FFS Tony Husband....rather that re-tweeting a non-story (below), how about using the time to ask some insightful questions about CVA1 instead?

 

@TonyHusbandBBC: RT @solentsport: Audioboo: Trevor Birch reacts to Football League ruling on #pompey http://t.co/FHbRMkYp

[pedg]

But, what gets me, is why NONE of the CVA1 creditors are shouting about this scam from the rooftops? Why is it only us nutjobs that appear to care about companies acting honourably?

 

I think most of them are able to write off the loses against tax? Something else to annoy HMRC about the whole thing.

[trousers]

OK written to the FL using some of the questions here, (hope I have not made a tit of myself) here is what I have e mailed;

 

Hello,

Heard this;

"BBC Solent Sport ‏@solentsport

To clarify statement from PKF - #pompey will start next season without further points deduction even if they are still in admin"

 

I understand that failing to reach a CVA, would mean a points deduction (I believe Leeds were deducted 15 points), surely the Portsmouth 2010 CVA now has to be classed as failed, with the dept having to go to a second CVA.

 

What I do not understand, is failing to exit with a CVA means points deduction, but reaching a CVA but ignoring it, to add onto a second CVA, after another admin does not.

 

Case A Leeds owed about 35 million I think but could not agree a CVA.

Case B Portsmouth owed about 120 million but gained a CVA to pay back 20%'.

 

Both Case A and B do not pay back anything,

 

Case A has 15 point penalty.

 

Case B increases their debt still further, build up extra dept by signing extra new players, not paying charities on top of other depts; has a 10 point penalty for second admin, within a couple of years. The first CVA now part of the second CVA so they will only be able to get a tiny fraction of money owed, not sure this is fair at all.

 

A small local business owed around £10,000 for example, would get £2000 from the first CVA. Now I have no idea of what the next CVA would get creditors but if it would be 20% again they would only get £400. I believe HMRC were owed 17 million, on a second CVA at 20% would mean they may only get £68,000. No wonder they are not happy with the football creditors rule, that I must confess is a joke and not done any favors to football at all, unless you can tell me otherwise.

 

As I believe the football league should be fair, can you please explain how two clubs can fail a CVA but only one has a points penalty for it?

 

Thank you for your time

 

Joe

 

PS, wrote this very quickly and just wanted to make the point, I understand I do not understand all the facts, and may be miss-informed. I love football and want the best for the game.

 

It's a good letter Joe - encapsulates the main problem with the Football League's punishment system. i.e. they don't punish 'outcomes' per se.

[ringwood]

So they avoid a points deduction , and maybe start the season in admin,thought the whole reason Leeds took the hit on the no cva was because you couldn't start a season in admin?

 

but what player is going to sign a contract with a club in admin? would you start with a new employer in admin?

 

 

what happens regarding those contracts as surely the administrator is running the club? do they sign for Birch or for the club?

[trousers]

So they avoid a points deduction , and maybe start the season in admin,thought the whole reason Leeds took the hit on the no cva was because you couldn't start a season in admin?

 

 

Rather perversely perhaps, I think the FL rule is that you can START a season in Admin without attracting any further points penalty but you can't END a season whilst still in Admin.

 

I think....Someone correct me if that's wrong...

[70's Mike]

It's a good letter Joe - encapsulates the main problem with the Football League's punishment system. i.e. they don't punish 'outcomes' per se.

 

Good letter but based on the replies I have received from the FL then do not expect any answer, more likely writer will be banned from all football than FL get off fence

[Jez]

I would love to see some official replies to both of the above well written letters/emails to the FL. And actually with some answers too rather than avoidance nonsense, or reasons for their justification. Never happen I am sure, but the more people hear and read these sort of thing, written in terms and language the laymen can understand, the better.

 

Someone tweet it to Gary Linekar and Robbie Savage or something

[ringwood]

found this

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/4c/ec/0,,10794~126028,00.pdf

 

Has some interesting lines

 

The Football League was faced with a novel situation: how to protect the interests of the unsecured creditors in the absence of a CVA? The completion of a CVA is not an absolute requirement of the Football League. The Board retained the discretion to waive the requirement in exceptional circumstances and to fashion a situation to preserve the integrity of the competition, to protect Football Creditors, without letting down unsecured creditors. In doing so it had to be astute not to set a precedent that put the principle underlying the Insolvency Policy at risk.

 

Normally Regulation 11 requires that a new Member (i.e. Leeds NewCo) should start the following season in a lower League (here L2). Leeds NewCo wanted to avoid this ‘relegation’ and to ensure Leeds stayed in L1 it was prepared to pay a price to achieve this. The Football League was receptive to the idea and indicated that it might be prepared to exercise its discretion to permit this to happen.

 

So best they avoid PFC 2012 as a newCo

[70's Mike]

I would love to see some official replies to both of the above well written letters/emails to the FL. And actually with some answers too rather than avoidance nonsense, or reasons for their justification. Never happen I am sure, but the more people hear and read these sort of thing, written in terms and language the laymen can understand, the better.

 

Someone tweet it to Gary Linekar and Robbie Savage or something

 

Adrian Durham at Talksport

[Ken Tone]

Is it likely to be as much as 20% of 20%? Thought the rumours were only 2p in the pound this time, ie 2% of 20%

 

 

Good Day

 

I am writing to you requesting clarification on this twitter message from the BBC:

 

BBC Solent Sport ‏@solentsport

 

#pompey administrators PKF confirm that Football League have assured Pompey will start season in League One - & without points penalty

 

I would like to point out that I was a victim in the previous Portsmouth 2010 administration, and as such I no longer run my freelance photography business as a result of the clubs collapse. A few thousand pounds may not mean much in the world of football but to a one man band like myself it is enough to ruin you. I now work in a shop, but at least I managed to keep my mortgage repayments up.

 

Now, as you are aware us creditors were pushed (I wont go as far as blackmailed) into accepting a CVA which payed a dividend of 20% of the original debt. The payment schedule was over a period of five years, however our first installment was pushed back to 2012. This was never going to solve the problems this administration had placed on my business, as a sole trader I knew it would finish me off either way and as such I simply voted with little care for myself.

 

Whilst I found it incredibly disturbing and deeply insulting to see the club continuing to sanction player purchases and associated salaries, I understand football and the nature of the beast of remaining competitive so it was something I had to accept, even though I was unable to continue my freelance work with the club.

 

To see the club go back into administration again this season was simply staggering, and discovering they had racked up more dozens of millions of debt, whilst never getting round to paying mine or any other poor souls from the creditors meetings a penny of our dividend, left me in a state of almost shock.

 

I am currently receiving correspondence from PKF regarding the 2012 administration (despite having to wind my business up), and I am told the original 2010 CVA debt will now be diluted into a 2012 CVA, and as such the 20% dividend will now be 20% of 20%. As a result my original debt in full will have gone from approximately £3000 to £120, and more importantly without my consent this time round.

 

That is absolutely scandalous and I cant help but think that if I tried to behave like that, I would be in prison by now!

 

As I have mentioned, I had to wind my business (and dreams) up so the debts owed to me are irrelevant what ever percentage they finally decide this time round.

 

My concern is for other local traders that are now suffering as a result of this, I believe the sporting authorities have a duty of care to them should one of their member clubs fail to provide a duty of care.

 

How on earth can the club avoid sporting sanctions for behaving like this? They have failed on a CVA, and are now doing it all again. My debt never got close to being repaid at the 20% I agreed to.

 

Please provide an explanation as to how a football club can take circa £130m of debt, turn it into around £30m via CVA MKI... only to build that debt up to £50m and run it back down to £10m without creditors consent in a CVA MKII, and do all this without further sporting sanctions?

 

Surely it is the same as not achieving a CVA? The CVA MKI never even got started, not one penny paid, before it failed. That is not the agreement we made in 2010, therefore the CVA was invalid.

 

I sincerely hope you can understand quite how much distress this has cause myself and my family.

 

Please clarify your statement as currently its rather sickening to people like myself whose lives have been totally destroyed by this circus on the south coast.

 

Regards

Edited 30 May, 2012 by Ken Tone

[trousers]

@pn_neil_allen: To clarify, as football creditor Lampitt gets all money owed. However this way it's faster - but takes cash needed to run #Pompey in admin.

[Trader]

Rather perversely perhaps, I think the FL rule is that you can START a season in Admin without attracting any further points penalty but you can't END a season whilst still in Admin.

 

I think....Someone correct me if that's wrong...

 

Err...............they just have ended the season in admin.

 

For someone with so many posts on this thread you seem totally confused.

 

Time you took a holiday methinks.

[bridge too far]

Err...............they just have ended the season in admin.

 

For someone with so many posts on this thread you seem totally confused.

 

Time you took a holiday methinks.

 

I THINK the interpretation is that a club can't start AND end in the same administration period. They came out of Admin 1 and are now in Admin 2. If they're still in Admin 2 at the end of the forthcoming season, then I think they would be further penalised.

[St Chalet]

Rather perversely perhaps, I think the FL rule is that you can START a season in Admin without attracting any further points penalty but you can't END a season whilst still in Admin.

 

I think....Someone correct me if that's wrong...

 

This is clearly explained in many of the 1269 pages, do keep up

[Gemmel]

I find it incredible that it doesn't even seem to occur to a decent journalist to pursue this line of enquiry with those involved in this particular case.

 

I know that our nut job tendencies make us more up to speed with what happened with CVA1 but for the journalist community to airbrush it en masse is baffling.

 

How many interviews does there have to be with any of the main characters in this farce before a journo asks an insightful question on behalf of the small creditors who are in the same position now as they would have been had there been no CVA1 in the first place?

 

Journos should be asking the football league why their punishment system(s ) are based on intentions (suspect or otherwise) rather than the outcome of those intentions.

 

Edit: FFS

 

Indeed. It's as if they have been told not to ask the XY& Z questions or they wont get an interview

 

Neck still firmly on the block - They will be punished. It just wouldnt be very helpful right now to being telling chinny the club he is about to take on again, will be in a relegation battle, before the first ball is kicked.

[trousers]

I THINK the interpretation is that a club can't start AND end in the same administration period. They came out of Admin 1 and are now in Admin 2. If they're still in Admin 2 at the end of the forthcoming season, then I think they would be further penalised.

 

^ THIS!!

 

Yeah...Keep up Trader and St Chalet....BTF got the gist of my ramblings...

 

Going into Admin costs points in the same season you go into Admin. You only lose further points if you don't come out of Admin by the end of the FOLLOWING season....

 

I think....

 

But, there again, you could be right (i.e. in suggesting that I've lost the plot)

 

:-)

[Whitey Grandad]

^ THIS!!

 

Yeah...Keep up Trader and St Chalet....BTF got the gist of my ramblings...

 

Going into Admin costs points in the same season you go into Admin. You only lose further points if you don't come out of Admin by the end of the FOLLOWING season....

 

I think....

 

But, there again, you could be right (i.e. in suggesting that I've lost the plot)

 

:-)

'two successive seasons or 18 consecutive months' according to this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)#cite_note-Wrexham-13

 

Which references:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4064257.stm

[Katalinic]

Apologies if this has been posted but it is well worth a read. When you read how the FA has shafted them it is f***ing scandalous how the DSB's have been allowed to get away with it so many times and for so long.

 

http://www.darlofc.co.uk/news.php?NewsID=923

[Liquidshokk]

It's getting to the stage of seeming like Pompey have got something on someone at the top, meaning someone is bending rules to assure that they avoid correct punishment

[miserableoldgit]

It's getting to the stage of seeming like Pompey have got something on someone at the top, meaning someone is bending rules to assure that they avoid correct punishment

 

I have said this all along. I am convinced.

 

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

[Shrek]

Apologies if this has been posted but it is well worth a read. When you read how the FA has shafted them it is f***ing scandalous how the DSB's have been allowed to get away with it so many times and for so long.

 

http://www.darlofc.co.uk/news.php?NewsID=923

 

Just incredible

 

How have the skates managed to get away so relatively unpunished thus far? There must be some serious skeletons in the Fratton Park closet, and I'm not talking about Kanu.

[St Chalet]

^ THIS!!

 

Yeah...Keep up Trader and St Chalet....BTF got the gist of my ramblings...

 

Going into Admin costs points in the same season you go into Admin. You only lose further points if you don't come out of Admin by the end of the FOLLOWING season....

 

I think....

 

But, there again, you could be right (i.e. in suggesting that I've lost the plot)

 

:-)

 

Haha, it is a moot point anyway. They will take PKF under if they run a season in admin.

[warsash saint]

P*mpey have gotten away with it once twice, three times etc etc ........ lets he honest they will ride through this latest episode relatively unscathered whilst flicking the V's at all decent people !!

[View From The Top]

All this "they've got something on someone" is pure boll.ocks. Simply put they WERE deemed to high profile to fail, but not now.

 

They are out of the media spotlight now & none apart from the skates, us & maybe BHA give a sh.it about them.

[Pugwash]

Here's a thought - instead of writing to the PL and FL (who frankly don't give a flying fu ck), perhaps appealing to the sponsors would be more productive. I know the PL is a monster, but how would Barclays react if "doin' a pompey" became endemic? It would certainly be possible with the likes of Liverpool or other large-ish clubs with big debts, if unscrupulous owners took charge. As we know, Barclays have certainly been quick enough call in the overdraft in the past, where they've thought their money was at risk.

 

Any access to rumour mills in the banking fraternity, Trousers?

[Wes Tender]

Good letter but based on the replies I have received from the FL then do not expect any answer' date=' more likely writer will be banned from all football than FL get off fence[/quote']

 

I have also been pursuaded to fire off an email to the FL accepting that the Skates are not due a further points deduction YET, but asking for an explanation as to why they may not be punished for not paying a single penny to the unsecured creditors of the last CVA, which was just a couple of years before this one. I have accused them of not acting in an even-handed way, being spineless and making the footballing authorities a laughing stock through their inept handling of the Pompey basket-case. I also happened to mention that they hadn't exactly covered themselves with glory in allowing the succession of owners of dubious repute to pass their fit and proper persons rules.

 

Whereas they just respond with a no comment message until things become clearer, I am hopeful that if they were to receive a massive email or post protest at the way that they handled the Pompey case, then when the time comes to make a decision on whether they be allowed to continue with their golden share, or whether additional points are to be deducted, then they might yet be influenced to grow some balls.

 

But likewise, I am also amazed as to why some journo hasn't written an article in a National to ask these questions of them.

[Sevvy]

Take it with a pinch of salt, but this is from the Daily Star,

 

Tal Ben Haim, 30, is demanding a £2m pay-off to tear up the final year of his contract

[sussexsaint]

TBH legend - I hope the owe Lumpit a ridiculously huge sum as well.

 

Tick...tick......tick......tick....

[Sevvy]

It has been a tumultuous year at Rangers, with the club narrowly being saved from extinction, losing several of their best players, handed a transfer ban subsequently overturned in the law courts and now facing the prospect of suspension from the Scottish Cup as punishment.

 

 

Related linksFIFA expects SFA to act against Rangers

Clark optimistic over Rangers CVA

Rangers ticket prices frozen

Desmond Kane: Scotland humping worse than Engelbert’s

Bet on Football - Get £25 Free..But for administrators Duff and Phelps, the turmoil has been a gold mine - with the firm having racked up £5.5 million in fees.With the administrators' staff charging an average of £450 an hour, the vast bill wipes out every penny Rangers made on the sale of their star player, Nikica Jelavic, to Everton in January. The fact that Jelavic has gone on to star for the Toffees (and thereby increase his value hugely) will only make the legal bill all the more difficult for the Ibrox club to swallow.

 

The huge legal bill was revealed as part of the draft details for the Company Voluntary Arrangement that creditors will be expected to agree to at a meeting next month. That CVA deal will see those who are owed money by the club repaid a derisory amount, estimated between three and six pence for every pound owed, according to a report in the Daily Record.

 

Given the poor level of return, the CVA may well be rejected as it will only go through if creditors owed more than a total of 75% of the current £55m debt agree to it. That means either HMRC (owed £21.5m) or Ticketus (owed £26.7m) could force the club back into jeopardy.

 

Administrator Paul Clark told the Record that the taxman has verbally agreed the CVA, however, while new Rangers chairman Charles Green is hopeful that the club's beleaguered creditors will not seek to claw back more from the club.

 

"I have great sympathy with creditors, particularly small local businesses in the community around Ibrox, who have suffered in the lead-up to administration," Green said. "I hope creditors will approve this proposal and we can begin the task of rebuilding Rangers in earnest."

 

So on this basis Wards money has already gone then

[pedg]

Take it with a pinch of salt, but this is from the Daily Star,

 

Tal Ben Haim, 30, is demanding a £2m pay-off to tear up the final year of his contract

 

Why be paid a ridiculous amount to play League 1 football when you can be paid a ridiculous amount to not play league 1 football.

[trousers]

@TonyHusbandBBC: Interesting poll from #pompey fans. RT @colinfarmery: Chainrai bid faces uphill battle http://t.co/HyDWEZv3

[pedg]

@TonyHusbandBBC: Interesting poll from #pompey fans. RT @colinfarmery: Chainrai bid faces uphill battle http://t.co/HyDWEZv3

 

Somewhat bias poll as the only reason that could be chosen for not going is 'out of principle'. As to Chainrai I am sure the results are not at all unexpected given the level of love for him expressed in their charming placards.

[rallyboy]

pompey in transfer policy U-turn shock!...how about this bombshell from financial guru Appy...

 

You have to be realistic, we have a budget which I am sticking to.

 

Finally, after years of painstaking investigation through the debris of two administrations, someone has spotted where it all went wrong.

Appy and his shrewd team of scientists from the University of Insolvency have discovered that pompey....spent more than they earned...

 

This startling confession should be enough to satisfy the league that the leopard has changed it's spots and that all fixtures can be completed - the future looks rosy.

No, not the manky jetsetting tax-avoiding mongrel that sh!t on the beach.

[hutch]

I listened to that audioboo clip of TB last night. It sounded to me as though he is quite a long way from having a bid from Chainrai sorted.

 

I'm struggling to think what he can take with him to the AGM. The best I can come up with is an offer to buy the club from Chainrai, which he will sign today, provided the FL agree to just a couple of minor points in the small print, including their agreement to waive the football creditor's rule, just this once for Pompey you understand, so that TB can sack the overpaid squad and lump them into the CVA for tuppence in the pound. And a promise not to do it again.

 

I can't see that they can realistically give him more time. Don't they have to publish the fixture list in a fortnight?

 

I wonder if Gordon Taylor gets an invitation to attend the AGM.

[trousers]

Here's a thought - instead of writing to the PL and FL (who frankly don't give a flying fu ck), perhaps appealing to the sponsors would be more productive. I know the PL is a monster, but how would Barclays react if "doin' a pompey" became endemic? It would certainly be possible with the likes of Liverpool or other large-ish clubs with big debts, if unscrupulous owners took charge. As we know, Barclays have certainly been quick enough call in the overdraft in the past, where they've thought their money was at risk.

 

Any access to rumour mills in the banking fraternity, Trousers?

 

The banks are doing a good enough job of ruining their reputation on their own.... :-)

[OldNick]

Interesting to read a few of the posts this morning and there seems to be a tilt that many now are coming to terms that Pompey have indeed got away with it. The FL/FA and authorities seem to be all in the old boys club and just say to Pompey 'never mind old chap, you are a bit of a scallywag but carry on'

How about a poll, Have/will Pompey got away with it

[hutch]

It would be interesting to see how you vote on that one, Nick.

[Gemmel]

I listened to that audioboo clip of TB last night. It sounded to me as though he is quite a long way from having a bid from Chainrai sorted.

 

I'm struggling to think what he can take with him to the AGM. The best I can come up with is an offer to buy the club from Chainrai, which he will sign today, provided the FL agree to just a couple of minor points in the small print, including their agreement to waive the football creditor's rule, just this once for Pompey you understand, so that TB can sack the overpaid squad and lump them into the CVA for tuppence in the pound. And a promise not to do it again.

 

I can't see that they can realistically give him more time. Don't they have to publish the fixture list in a fortnight?

 

I wonder if Gordon Taylor gets an invitation to attend the AGM.

 

Exactly right Hutch. Infact the ony part of that interview, that was remotely intresting was the very last bit.

 

Birch had previously stated Chanrais bid had certain "Conditions". I assumed those to be around the repayment terms and being loop holes for paying any money back. In that interview yesterday about Chanarais bid, Birch said 'There are certain conditions based around reducing the payers wages, which is completely understandable".

 

So does chinnys bid, depend on Birch getting rid of TBH, Kitson, Lawerence etc etc? If it does, that could end up as a "No bid".

[pedg]

Interesting to read a few of the posts this morning and there seems to be a tilt that many now are coming to terms that Pompey have indeed got away with it. The FL/FA and authorities seem to be all in the old boys club and just say to Pompey 'never mind old chap, you are a bit of a scallywag but carry on'

How about a poll, Have/will Pompey got away with it

 

I think its possible they 'could' get away with it but there are a few tricky hurdles they have to get over before anyone can say for sure that they have. No point asking if they have got away with it till after the league meeting and takeover and CVA agreement.