Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guided Missile

Guided Missile

Posted
Posted
The Pompey Supporters Trust's response begs the question....why has Birch seemingly jumped the gun by recommending/endorsing Portpin's CVA without waiting for any counter offers?

Proof of funds was required, not idle boasts by a bunch of dreamers, led by that well known Southampton administrator, Antony Fanshawe...

 

2fadb8a_reasonably_small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clapham Saint

Clapham Saint

Posted
Posted
BT have to vote in favour of whatever is in the best interests of the OldCo unsecured creditors. HMRC are the biggest of those creditors now, by far. BT have to vote whichever way HMRC tell them to, IMO.

 

HMRC aren't going to vote in favour of this ****e.

 

Baker Tilly are obliged to vote in whichever manner they think will maximise the funds available to the CVA1 (now liquidation) creditors.

 

They are also obgliged to treat all creditors equally and so although they might seek HMRC's (and other creditor's) opinion(s) they won't simply be "doing what they are told" by HMRC.

 

If its a straight choice between £nil and 2% then I expect them to go with 2% unless the liquidation creditors are overwhelmingly against it.

 

You have to remember though that CVA1 was 20% less costs...

 

I think BTs claim is £16.5m (happy to be corrected).

 

£16.5m x 2% = £330k.

 

Less BT's fees probably leaves very little indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted

 

According to the Company’s books and records the value of future Parachute Payments is c£14m.

 

Any idea why the Parachute Payments wording in the CVA proposal doc is written in such a non-definitive fashion?

 

"According to the company's books and records"....?

 

Why word it like that? Surely a quick check with the Premier League would tell Birch the exact figure due?

 

Why the element of doubt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pugwash

Pugwash

Posted
Posted

Some questions that perhaps Clapham or some other Learned Saint can answer:

 

Surely an administrator's responsibility is to not increase the exposure of creditors' financial indebtedness?

 

Does this include not favouring one creditor over another (secured or otherwise)?

 

Assume the company's assets are finite. By continuing to run the business until the money runs out, particularly deferring footballers' wages, the secured creditors (including football creditors) will end up with an increasingly larger share of any CVA. Therefore are the unsecured creditors seeing a diminishing return the longer it goes on?

 

In the event of liquidation, presumably some of these 'secured' creditors, i.e. the football debts, have to take the same percentage from the proceeds of the liquidation as anyone else? If this is the case, the value of the ground must surely give a better return than the CVA?

 

Sorry if this is going over old ground, but I'm on my hols with my brain in neutral...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clapham Saint

Clapham Saint

Posted
Posted
Some questions that perhaps Clapham or some other Learned Saint can answer:

 

Surely an administrator's responsibility is to not increase the exposure of creditors' financial indebtedness?

 

Does this include not favouring one creditor over another (secured or otherwise)?

 

Assume the company's assets are finite. By continuing to run the business until the money runs out, particularly deferring footballers' wages, the secured creditors (including football creditors) will end up with an increasingly larger share of any CVA. Therefore are the unsecured creditors seeing a diminishing return the longer it goes on?

 

In the event of liquidation, presumably some of these 'secured' creditors, i.e. the football debts, have to take the same percentage from the proceeds of the liquidation as anyone else? If this is the case, the value of the ground must surely give a better return than the CVA?

 

Sorry if this is going over old ground, but I'm on my hols with my brain in neutral...

 

The secured creditors are excluded from the CVA.

 

Unless the CVA2 document says that he will do otherwise (I haven't read it)

 

Chinny will still be owed £16m (or whatever the figure is) after the CVA is finalised.

 

Unsecured creditors will receive £500k (presumably less PKF fees - which might they might have to agree to reduce) to be shared between them. Chinny won't receive a share of the £500k.

 

If the club were liquidated and the only funds reaised being the sale of the ground, the proceeds would all go to Chinny and the unsecured creditors would get nothing.

 

CVA - unsecured creditors get a share of £500k (less costs)

Liquidation - unsecured creditors get a share of £0.

 

 

3 posts and out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Under Weststand

Under Weststand

Posted
Posted

This is just unreal, so portpin are to try to convince the administrator of CSI (being his puppet) to right off their debt! So they can maybe almost definitely possibly get a slightly higher p in the pound.

I can just see that will be an arduous meeting won't it! Hey Comical Andy I want you to drop our debt we owe you, Ok Chinny will do.

Surely this cannot be allowed in law? It has to be a conflict of interest here? Everyone knows chinny tried to bribe his way into having comical Andy in charge of the administration at Poopey. How would it be appropriate for him then to wave a charge from CSI to benifit his employer opps sorry one company in admin, at the expense of another company which he is supposed to be getting the best deal from for their creditors?

 

If the FL let this total fraud happen once again & allow Chinny to pass the FPPT then they are just beyond pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted

 

The ultimate value of creditors’ claims ranking for dividend will be subject to an adjudication process. Therefore, claims may increase, decrease or be rejected in whole or in part. For example, the OldCo creditors may be reduced as they include assessments which on adjudication by the OlcCo liquidators are likely to reduce.

 

Is that referring to the alleged 'creative inflation' of the number and/or amount of creditors under CVA1 by "you know who"? And that they are now trying to reduce that to gain an advantage in the voting for CVA2....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)
I think BTs claim is £16.5m (happy to be corrected).

 

 

Just noticed this in the list of creditors:

 

Name.........................................................................Statement of Affairs.....Proof of Debt........Address

 

Portsmouth City Football Club Limited (In Liquidation)......16,500,000.00..............24,435,795.32......C/o Baker Tilly, 25 Farringdon Street, London, EC4A 4RB

 

What does that mean? That BT are claiming more under CVA1 than is actually on 'the books'?

Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
Unsecured creditors will receive £500k (presumably less PKF fees - which might they might have to agree to reduce) to be shared between them.

 

According to today's PKF CVA doc, they (PKF) have currently racked up over £1m in administration costs....(if I've read the doc correctly)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Truckasaurus

Truckasaurus

Posted
Posted
Roll on the next 1200 pages :) This still has a long way to go......[/QUOT

 

I'm not so sure,chinny won't buy with all the big wages and the trust are p***ing in the wind.

 

aiuoitnqdli Rearange these letters for your answer. :scared:

 

God bless womens breasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigShadow

BigShadow

Posted
Posted

Remember back in court...Chinny offered £500k towards admin costs if AA/UHY were appointed....so this £500k he is now offering to creditors is not costing him any more than he was prepared to give AA. Not to mention he will get a chunk of that back via CSI. Assuming he can fund the FCR obligations from the parachute payments, seems like a nice piece of business. AND...the sweetener in the CVA - an extra £500k if they reach the premier league - so you reach the promised land with £60m p.a. riches and how much do you offer the creditors you stole £140m from?? HA, insult to injury.

 

The small creditors/charities promise - hope that has some strict wording attached to the offer i.e. will be paid by XX/XX/XX. Also didn't Lumpitt say many months ago, that one of the problems with making this offer was that creditors owed more than £2,500 were reducing their claims in order to qualify for the payment in full pledge. So under this CVA - anyone owed less than £125k would be better served reducing their claim to £2,500.

 

As for the PST, what have they been doing? Wasn't there some kind of deadline for getting pledges in about 10 days ago? Now they need to meet with TB next week to see if they can concoct a bid in 7 days???? Will TB be duty bound to delay the creditors CVA vote to allow proper consideration of the Trust bid? Isn't time (and money) running out?

 

And the elephant in the room - need to reach agreements with certain players - any detail on that? Seems very vague - scope of reductions? how close are they to achieving that?

 

And WTF are the FL doing? I assume they must have given Birch a date that this must all be sorted by? Why can't they share that information so that the few know (and more importantly, we know) what the critical date is? Any reason it should be a secret?

 

So many questions.....pretty pointless I know.....I guess I honestly thought the money would have dried up by now and something would have happened. Now it looks like dragging on well into July. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
Sorry being completely thick here , why would the creditors vote against this, surely its either accept this or get the square root of bugger all ( I appreciate they ammount to virtually the same monetarily) but from a purely business perspective wouldn't they rather have something no matter how small rather than nothing? I know thats not what we would want but ....

 

as I posted above if you were originally owed £100,000 and now face getting just £400, then the concept of getting something rather than nothing has all but gone out the window. In that case you would be far more likely to vote based on principle and perhaps against Chinny just because he is blameable (unless of course Baker Tilly takes your vote).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted
Is that referring to the alleged 'creative inflation' of the number and/or amount of creditors under CVA1 by "you know who"? And that they are now trying to reduce that to gain an advantage in the voting for CVA2....?

 

Indeed, And stated by Androids own fair hand in the last CVA. - They clearly stated that they expected the amounts creditors were claiming would reduce significantly (Based on proof of debt). It's as if he had a crystal ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted

this saga has opened my eyes to how bent and useless the law is when a company ploughs headlong into administration. it used to common to hear that a 3 piece suite company closed one day and re-opened the next and you would just brush it off thinking 'they can't keep doing it' Patently they can and do, and the people we in society look to to uphold decency bury their heads in the sand. Is it self interest /incompetence or dishonesty I'm not sure but I am still of the belief Pompey have/will got away with it.

 

All those who are happy for them to limp on I would like to point out that, Pompey were always swimming around the depths of the lower leagues until they hit a couple of owners who by hook or crook got them to the PL and Fa cup final. By them staying alive it could happen again in your lifetimes, is it worht risking? They should be crushed forever, but decency will not prevail and the dishonest club will survive

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaintRichmond

SaintRichmond

Posted
Posted
Just noticed this in the list of creditors:

 

Name.........................................................................Statement of Affairs.....Proof of Debt........Address

 

Portsmouth City Football Club Limited (In Liquidation)......16,500,000.00..............24,435,795.32......C/o Baker Tilly, 25 Farringdon Street, London, EC4A 4RB

 

What does that mean? That BT are claiming more under CVA1 than is actually on 'the books'?

 

 

More to the point, what does the " In liquidation " mean ??

 

Something we don't know ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)
More to the point, what does the " In liquidation " mean ??

 

Something we don't know ?

 

It's referring the 2010 'version' of PFC, not the current incarnation...

 

i.e. those owed money under CVA1

 

The CVA1 figure usually quoted is the £16.5m one. But CVA2 lists a figure of £24.5m for CVA1 under the 'proof of debt' column

Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Truckasaurus

Truckasaurus

Posted
Posted
this saga has opened my eyes to how bent and useless the law is when a company ploughs headlong into administration. it used to common to hear that a 3 piece suite company closed one day and re-opened the next and you would just brush it off thinking 'they can't keep doing it' Patently they can and do, and the people we in society look to to uphold decency bury their heads in the sand. Is it self interest /incompetence or dishonesty I'm not sure but I am still of the belief Pompey have/will got away with it.

 

All those who are happy for them to limp on I would like to point out that, Pompey were always swimming around the depths of the lower leagues until they hit a couple of owners who by hook or crook got them to the PL and Fa cup final. By them staying alive it could happen again in your lifetimes, is it worht risking? They should be crushed forever, but decency will not prevail and the dishonest club will survive

 

I could not agree more,the sooner this joke of a club f**k off and die the better for all of football in this country.

 

God bless kharma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted

What's the difference in the creditors listing between "Statement of Affairs" and "Proof of Debt"? For the 'Professional Football Players Claim Element 1 to 4' the former has all 4 entries zero and the later has 4 entries totalling about £25 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dvaughanwilliams

dvaughanwilliams

Posted
Posted

It's the 2 conditions in the CVA that make the whole thing so tantalising.

 

Chinny will only buy the club if the wages are reduced. This all hangs on what the players and other Football Creditors would get in liquidation. I know that it has been suggested that the Football Creditors would get paid off, but there isn't a precedent for this kind of situation, especially given that the total of Football debts, deferred wages and future wages probably total about £10m or more. If they are protected, I can't see why they would give up their contractual obligations.

 

The suggestion that after Chinny takes control, CSI's administrators 'may' waive the debt. This kills the Trust stone dead. CSI's debts are being administered by AA who is Chinny's preferred administrator. CSI can vote down any rival CVA, especially with the assistance of HMRC. I can't think why the trust think that they could get any proposal through. However, their proposals about Chinny's secured debt will be interesting.

 

It will be interesting to see if Football Creditors get to vote on the CVA. If they don't then CSI definitely have more than 25%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dvaughanwilliams

dvaughanwilliams

Posted
Posted
Can someone explain how the 'asset' known as Fratton Park can be valued at £13.2m on the company books yet at the same time be valued at only £1m if it were to be sold on the open market upon liquidation?

 

In other words, how is a company allowed to exagerate the value of something for the purposes of accounting? Surely the ground has one value - i.e. the value anyone is prepared to pay for it at any moment in time.

 

Are they saying that the ground is worth 13x more just because someone is playing League One football on it? And are they assumign the council wouldn't revoke the "football use only" clause if no-one actually wanted to play football there? i.e. the council would rather see the land turn into a waste ground than, say, sell it off to Tesco.

 

All seems like a lot of creative accounting to me in order to make the gap between "CVA" and "Liquidation" as large as possible....

 

Objects don't have a single value. Think about antiques, buying a pair of items may cost more than double the cost of one of the items on its own.

 

Or, imagine you own a big book, that you use to prop up a wobbly table. You value this book at a couple of quid, which is the replacement cost of buying something else to prop up the table. To a collector of rare books that signed, first edition copy of Ulysses, is worth a bit more - http://tinyurl.com/7qy45qy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
St Chalet

St Chalet

Posted
Posted

Chinny is planning to seperate the ground from the club under this proposal, genius!

 

The Skates will be bled dry until he has got the PP's all the time paying him a rent to play at Fratton. At the point he sticks them into admin #3 he will own the ground, gunrunner will own the land around it and Skates will be relegated from the FL.

 

Vote CVA for guaranteed laughs for another 12 months I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted

The Skates will be bled dry until he has got the PP's all the time paying him a rent to play at Fratton. At the point he sticks them into admin #3 he will own the ground, gunrunner will own the land around it and Skates will be relegated from the FL.

 

Worse than that, it would be admin #4 - 1998, 2010, 2012 plus your new one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
What's the difference in the creditors listing between "Statement of Affairs" and "Proof of Debt"? For the 'Professional Football Players Claim Element 1 to 4' the former has all 4 entries zero and the later has 4 entries totalling about £25 million.

 

Was asking the same thing above about another entry in that table (http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?14620-Pompey-Takeover-Saga&p=1383845#post1383845)

 

Does anyone know the difference between the two columns?

 

My guess is the "Statement of Affairs" column is the position as the administrator saw it when he first took control of the club (i.e. what was in the club's accounts at the time) and the "Proof of debt" column is what the creditors have subsequently claimed for (and have provided evidence to back up said claim).

 

Maybe?

 

If that's right, it would be interesting to total up the two columns and see what the difference is....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint in Paradise

Saint in Paradise

Posted
Posted

When the vote is taken on June 25th will they name names about who voted "For" and

who voted "Against" ? Only with some of the idiots down there stupid enough to physically

attack "No" voters would YOU vote no? Like Old Nick I can see them living on and on and

so for me "getting away with it" yet again. :x:x

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
Was asking the same thing above about another entry in that table (http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?14620-Pompey-Takeover-Saga&p=1383845#post1383845)

 

Does anyone know the difference between the two columns?

 

My guess is the "Statement of Affairs" column is the position as the administrator saw it when he first took control of the club (i.e. what was in the club's accounts at the time) and the "Proof of debt" column is what the creditors have subsequently claimed for (and have provided evidence to back up said claim).

 

Maybe?

 

If that's right, it would be interesting to total up the two columns and see what the difference is....

 

That's what I suspected but with respect to the items I mentioned:

 

a) Not sure exactly what the Professional Football Players Claim Element's are? I would guess they relate to unpaid wages but surely even then the figure of 25 million is a bit high?

b) If they are wages are they not footballing debts that need to paid in full due to the FCR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eurosaint

eurosaint

Posted
Posted

Quote from a Telegraph article :

"At its AGM on June 2, the Football League ruled Portsmouth can play on in administration without losing any further points".

I was under the impression that only Birch had said that and it was never 'ruled' by the FL ??

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/portsmouth/9320296/Portsmouths-former-owner-Balram-Chainrai-makes-low-bid-to-buy-debt-ridden-club.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
Quote from a Telegraph article :

"At its AGM on June 2, the Football League ruled Portsmouth can play on in administration without losing any further points".

I was under the impression that only Birch had said that and it was never 'ruled' by the FL ??

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/portsmouth/9320296/Portsmouths-former-owner-Balram-Chainrai-makes-low-bid-to-buy-debt-ridden-club.html

 

Birch said it but I doubt he made it all up. He's not AA.

http://www.pkf.co.uk/pkf/news/football_industry/portsmouth_administrator_confirms_club_can_play_in_league_one_next_season

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
Quote from a Telegraph article :

"At its AGM on June 2, the Football League ruled Portsmouth can play on in administration without losing any further points".

I was under the impression that only Birch had said that and it was never 'ruled' by the FL ??

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/portsmouth/9320296/Portsmouths-former-owner-Balram-Chainrai-makes-low-bid-to-buy-debt-ridden-club.html

 

Which is exactly right and within the FL rules!

 

They CAN start the season in admin with no points deduction.

 

They CAN'T start a second season in admin - full stop!

 

They CAN receive a points penalty if they exit admin without and agreed CVA.

 

They SHOULD receive a points penalty for rolling up the first CVA into the second one, but I doubt they will!

 

Still, whatever happens, with Chainrai or the trust in charge, the self destruct button will be hit. Chinny won't want to spend a single penny more than he has too - he isn't worried about promotion! - and the trust won't have any money to spend. So either way, apart from the high earners they have and can't get rid of, the rest of the squad will be made up of free transfers and cheap kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wade Garrett

Wade Garrett

Posted
Posted

What's the point of Chanrai taking the club over? As far as I can see, most of the parachute payments will be going straight into the pockets of the high earners at the club. The club will only be worth any money if the squad is strengthened, they get a promotion or two, and they are on a firm financial footing. This would surely require Chanrai to have to invest more money.

 

I'm confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fowllyd

Fowllyd

Posted
Posted
Quote from a Telegraph article :

"At its AGM on June 2, the Football League ruled Portsmouth can play on in administration without losing any further points".

I was under the impression that only Birch had said that and it was never 'ruled' by the FL ??

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/portsmouth/9320296/Portsmouths-former-owner-Balram-Chainrai-makes-low-bid-to-buy-debt-ridden-club.html

 

No great surprise about this. The FL has rules about a club's exit from administration, but nothing about starting a season in administration - unless of course it's a second consecutive season, which this won't be for Pompey. It's by no means the 'absolute guarantee that there'll be no further points penalties' that the News would like to portray though.

 

I could easily see them exiting administration with no agreed CVA and suffering a points penalty as a result. Or, even if the proposed CVA from Portpin is accepted, they'll still struggle next season as next to nothing will be spent on the playing squad (or on anything much else for that matter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fowllyd

Fowllyd

Posted
Posted
What's the point of Chanrai taking the club over? As far as I can see, most of the parachute payments will be going straight into the pockets of the high earners at the club. The club will only be worth any money if the squad is strengthened, they get a promotion or two, and they are on a firm financial footing. This would surely require Chanrai to have to invest more money.

 

I'm confused.

 

Chainrai's generous offer is dependent on certain high earners renegotiating their contracts - in other words, accepting considerably less than the outstanding amounts to be paid. If he doesn't get that agreement, his offer is withdrawn. Without the likes of TBH and Kanu (and, I'd assume, Lawrence, Norris, Kitson et al) he'll be able to spend only revenue income on wages and pocket other income (to wit, the remaining parachute payments).

 

For those of us of a certain vintage, this saga is beginning to resemble that superb comedy show form the 70s, Soap. The start of each episode had a voice-over outlining the convoluted plot, invariably ending with the line "Confused? You won't be - after tonight's episode of Soap!" Needless to say, each episode left you more confused than the previous one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted

Just reading Birch's proposals now. I see HMRC have come up with a cunning plan to get their money back.

 

In addition the costs of the Nominees solicitors in respect of proposing the CVA are estimated at £15,000 plus VAT plus VAT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...