Pompey Takeover Saga

[OldNick]

If they found the cash to do a deal with HMRC would that mean they no longer had to go back to court next week? Or after the claim that they are insolvent does the judge want to look at the validity of that claim regardless of HMRC now?

 

My understanding is that is not an option.Whether they pay up or not they have to supply concrete evidence that they can pay all the debts (read Phils post , who to me sums it up perfectly) If not it's goodbye.

[rallyboy]

interesting note in the fa rules re a club that goes into liquidation - 'their results would be declared void'.

Not just league results.

 

So if we win, great, if they win and then lose it court - result scrubbed from the records.

 

 

And does this all mean that Maradona isn't coming anymore?

[Pancake]

The way I see it, PFC (Storrie) has not understood it's predicament (unlikely) or is avoiding the real issue (probable). That route leads to disaster next time round in Court.

 

This from the Grauniad article, quoting from Pompey' website:

 

" "Portsmouth Football Club today welcomed the decision by the High Court to allow the club time to demonstrate its plans to restructure and stabilise the business under new owner Balram Chainrai," read a statement on the club's website. "The club was given seven days to produce a statement of affairs for the court and HMRC and this will be produced in conjunction with Vantis plc, a firm of accountancy and insolvency practitioners."

 

What they actually have is time to provide to HMRC a Statement of Affairs which shows that, at this point in time, they are not insolvent (can meet their liabilities as they fall due), and will not be in the foreseeable future. That SoA must be accurate, truthful and independent of the usual PFC "spin". I'm sure that it won't have escaped HMRC, or their experts and Counsel, that Azougy has a track record of providing falsified documents to the Courts in Israel, or so it has been reported elsewhere(for the mods).

 

Remember their Finance Director, Tanya Robbins, stepped down from the board weeks ago, and they haven't appointed (or can't appoint) a replacement. Reasons? Directors who knowingly allow a company to trade while insolvent are open to criminal charges, and can be held personally liable for it's debts. Who better to know whether a company is solvent or not than it's finance director?

 

PFC seem to be preparing themselves to go back with documents which will show that with the very rich, but as yet unidentified, new owner in place the "business will be sustainable as a going concern" But without .....?

 

In his interviews last night Storrie stated that Vantis has been appointed by the Judge. Does anybody know if that's actually true? I believe the judge has ordered PFC to provide the SoA. Where they get it from, or how they prepare it, is up to them, as long as it satisfies the necessary criteria. If it doesn't, I doubt the Judge will have any more patience.

 

Storrie also continued to refer to Chainrai as the new owner. As do the club and the media. I still believe that Al-Mirage remains the legal owner, not Chainrai. Chainrai is like the rest of us, standing outside the fish tank looking in. He's just a lot more interested at what's going on inside than even we are.

 

Pompey went to Court yesterday with the attitude that it doesn't matter whether we're solvent now or not, which we deny of course, and it's none of your business anyway, because we won't be soon. We've already got a rich new owner and we'll have an even richer one any day now. That didn't wash.

 

As I see it the Judge simply did the procedurally correct thing before pulling the plug. Their only way out is administration (if that's still possible, which I somehow doubt), or another new owner with 10's of millions to waste in place, and funds injected, in the next 10 days.

 

Otherwise the Company will be wound up. There will always be a professional football club in Portsmouth. It won't be in the Premier League for a while, but hey, we know what that feels like, dont we? It's a supply and demand thing. But this Company, and the charletans associated with it, will have nothing to do with it.

 

One of the bets posts on here in the last 2 days. Read and digest people, read and digest.

[OldNick]

interesting note in the fa rules re a club that goes into liquidation - 'their results would be declared void'.

Not just league results.

 

So if we win, great, if they win and then lose it court - result scrubbed from the records.

 

 

And does this all mean that Maradona isn't coming anymore?

The FA surely are leaving themselves open, in not immediately frezing any of PFC's fixtures until they can assertain whether they are indeed trading illegally.

The FA have seen in court that a judge and HMRC have agreed that they believe they are trading illegally. I would have thought their lawyers would have got them to act imediately as it could leave them open to private claims. I know its fanciful but why couldn't groups of clubs fans who are directly effected make psycological claims that their team has been relegated and the stress involved. the clubs players (as Sheff utd threatened to once) sue as their potential loss of earnings etc. Fanciful i know but in this world!

[Bongo badger]

What was news last week is now old as the barrister sees it, she has set them a new challenge and one that will need not only heaps of man hours to fulfil but also a un realistic one, after all its not about paying any money back to get them out the quicksand anymore, this is because she believes they can not pay any money full stop. Cases like this are two a penny ( apart from the football spin on things) and have been going on for years, after all, business is the oldest industry known to man and the problems bolted on to it have also been around for just as long. These people know exactly what is going on. The big issue here is that the directors of the club have knowingly been running the club for some time illegally. I think this 7 days is a un-sympathetic approach by the barrister, but could be also seen as sympathetic. Plus it also gives everyone concerned or not, time to understand the outcome and to plan, if the unthinkable where to happen ! More importantly it could also be so, the legal teams can formulate and collate information to put a case forward regarding the directors, who have been breaking the law. If the barrister lets a business carry on running knowing its not solvent then are they also breaking the law !

On an investment front, no investor unless trying to self harm, will find Pompey a real asset, to plunge much cash into a commercial eating money sponge with a false promises of a small return, if any, would scare most if not all. These old hopefuls lets face, only came into the public limelight when the fairy tail of a new state of the art ground plus, was on the table, or the sea !. People were running round the painted white squeaky material model erection, with their cheque books at the ready sipping champagne, and willing to sign on the dotted line just by looking at it, and being taken in by the 100k media soup of marketing. Not sure I would have liked to have stayed in one of the rooms at the point of the arch at the sea end of said model. When this went bottoms up they were left with very red faces, they knew plan A was not going to get through and the gamble was always the hope of plan B being excepted, unfortunately this also was poo pooed and when the plans were chucked out to build on the muddy waist ground the only option was to turn FP round, not what anyone wanted, at this time all they wanted to do was jump ship and sell sell sell. The other factors to consider is the council want the ground, its a prime development site and would make the council money, having a big crowd gathering event a few times a month in the middle of a housing development is a head ache for sure for any council Could there be some corridors around a civic hall somewhere in the south, the whispers of brown envelopes and a big pay day on the lips of some cunning servant/s who have a better angle on business and who have very very good forecasting skills. The FA also have to brunt some blame, who apart from the people concerned know what deals are done late at night away from prying eyes. Have they been responsible in paying some of PFC debt. Lets face it, the bodies rules that have taken a great deal of time and effort to generate have fallen into un monitored breach and maybe there is some knuckle wrapping going on in W2.

An interesting week ahead in more ways than one.

[Joensuu]

I'd hardly say I was eccentric:confused:. The pointers were all there for them to be wound up. The only thing that would of saved them, was to do a deal with HMRC. FACT, HMRC WANTED them wound up, the only reason they weren't, was that the Registrar, decided (because of jobs involved), that the club prove they were a going concern.

 

That will be near on impossible to prove, so they will be wound up. Hardly an eccentric view, or are the QC's employed by HMRC...eccentric.

 

Don't take it personally! I'm broadly in agreement with you that they are in the brown stuff.

 

I disagree that the only thing that would save them was a deal with HMRC, at any point in the last fortnight: a new investor could have appeared (very unlikely); Chainrai could have put his hand in his pocket (possible, but unlikely); the Premier League could have intervened (very unlikely), etc. Until Tueday night either self-imposed admin or a deal with HMRC were by far the most likely outcomes. Neither of them would have saved the club, but both would have bought them (crucial?) time. But by no streach of the imagination was a deal with HMRC the only way to avoid liquidation!

 

Here's my take on what the odds were, and how they changed, as you can see, I felt that the odds on the case even getting to court were slim, and once they were their the odds on liquidation unlikely:

 

45% Pompey enter admin tomorrow (game on)

30% Pompey cut a deal with HMRC tomorrow (game on)

15% Court rules against Pompey, gives them 28 days to pay up (game on)

5% Court rules in favor of Pompey (game on)

5% Court rules against Pompey, puts them straight into liquidation (no game).

There are only three outcomes now:

 

1) Pompey get off without having to pay tax bill (0% chance)

2) Pompey get (say) 28 days to pay taxs (75% chance)

3) Pompey wound up immeadiately (25% chance)

 

I also disagree that HMRC 'wanted' to wind them up. Quite simply, HMRC were handling Pompey as they would any company. Sure they were probably annoyed that instead of looking for ways to pay, Pompey looked for ways to not have to pay. Once a case has got as far as the court room of course the prosecution will be pressing for the hardest possible sentance, I bet they did exactly the same for Cardiff and Southend (difference being the Registrar could see that they both have attempted to pay their bills, not attempted to avoid payment, and have almost acceptable repayment schedules going forward; Pompey haven't and don't). Which brings me to my last point, the Registrar didn't take the 'jobs' into consideration - she said she couldn't herself. She gave them a very short period of time to prove their 'investor' claims. The 'jobs', one man protests etc were simply not considerations.

 

Broadly, I agree with you, that barring a new investor (or Chainrai losing his marbles) they are well and truely shafted.

Edited 11 February, 2010 by Joensuu
to improve clarity

[hutch]

Think someone should point out their mistake as they appear to think one of the solutions for pompey is to pay off HMRC whereas if we believe Dubai Phil, (which obviously we always do ) then that is no longer an option.

 

--

 

Have sent them an email asking they correct it!

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Paying off HMRC will bring the present petition to a close. But it will not prevent new petitions from being issued. What would you do if you were owed money, and found out that if you issue a WUP, you get paid?

 

And criminal proceedings against directors for trading whilst knowingly insolvent are for another Court, in front of a different Judge.

[pedg]

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Paying off HMRC will bring the present petition to a close. But it will not prevent new petitions from being issued. What would you do if you were owed money, and found out that if you issue a WUP, you get paid?

 

And criminal proceedings against directors for trading whilst knowingly insolvent are for another Court, in front of a different Judge.

 

So if they paid off HMRC before the date they are due to deposit the statement what would happen?

[fuente saint]

As a recently retired HMRC employee, I can assure everyone that the main reason HMRC want the club wound up is to draw a line in the sand over any future losses of VAT, PAYE and NI. They have basically given up on recovering existing amounts, although they may well be hoping to retrieve a small part via the creditor route. They are merely mitigating future losses.

[Burger]

Statement of Affairs - did I read somewhere that PFC had already provided this to the PL in January? If so it must prove that the club is solvent or surely the PL would have acted on it?

[Pancake]

Statement of Affairs - did I read somewhere that PFC had already provided this to the PL in January? If so it must prove that the club is solvent or surely the PL would have acted on it?

 

I think the document they had to produce for Prem was more of a "Football2 Statement of Affairs - as in wages, transfers etc; not all the other sundry bits that the courts now want to see (tea lady, paper suppliers, caterers, van driver, website provider etc)

[pedg]

Statement of Affairs - did I read somewhere that PFC had already provided this to the PL in January? If so it must prove that the club is solvent or surely the PL would have acted on it?

 

I think the line was they provided something 'similar' to the PL. One assumes it was produced in-house and not by an independent firm Once must also assume that it did not show them as being insolvent as if it did and it came out that the PL knew they were insolvent and did nothing they would be in the poo. The question then is was the document accurate or was it another creation by the fraudster? If the latter how well could the PL check the document to see if it was a correct representation?

[Guided Missile]

Statement of Affairs - did I read somewhere that PFC had already provided this to the PL in January? If so it must prove that the club is solvent or surely the PL would have acted on it?

I think it's likely that was provided by a convicted fraudster. This time it is likely to be from an accountant that gives a sh! t about his reputation...

[Goalie66]

So the net outcome of Pompey's strategy whilst knowing trading while insolvent.

 

1. Get wound up next week when they could have gone into voluntary Admin

2.Paid the tax bill and avoided the WU order

3.Settled out of court but insisted on the hearing

4. The court stating that they are insolvent that leaves them liable for criminal prosection of the Directors

5. ALL debts to be paid inclusing those owed to HMRC by next week

6. An independent audit that is likely to reveal more illegal trading

6. And thier bluff called on phantom prophets of profit

 

They have been well advised !!!

[View From The Top]

I think it's likely that was provided by a convicted fraudster. This time it is likely to be from an accountant that gives a sh! t about his reputation...

 

Is this document drawn up by an independent accountant or one appointed by the club?

[stevegrant]

Is this document drawn up by an independent accountant or one appointed by the club?

The latter, I think.

 

They've bizarrely appointed Vantis, who are run by none other than our old friend Ken "Agent Orange" Dulieu...

[Burger]

I think the line was they provided something 'similar' to the PL. One assumes it was produced in-house and not by an independent firm Once must also assume that it did not show them as being insolvent as if it did and it came out that the PL knew they were insolvent and did nothing they would be in the poo. The question then is was the document accurate or was it another creation by the fraudster? If the latter how well could the PL check the document to see if it was a correct representation?

 

so we need to get the court to say - "and can we see the Statement you provided to the PL" as either the Board of PFC provided false data to the PL or the PL allowed an insolvent club to continue

[Guided Missile]

How times have changed:

 

 

[hutch]

So if they paid off HMRC before the date they are due to deposit the statement what would happen?

The lawyers on both sides would draw up an agreed order, along the lines that the debt has been settled and no further action is required in this matter. It would be presented to the Court as a formality, and the case would be closed.

 

As I said, it wouldn't prevent other petitions, but it would buy time until other petitions get to Court. But, more importantly, it requires somebody to stump up at least £12.1m in cash. Now.

[pedg]

so we need to get the court to say - "and can we see the Statement you provided to the PL" as either the Board of PFC provided false data to the PL or the PL allowed an insolvent club to continue

 

Possibly, as Pancake said above, if the document related only to their football related debts then it may well have not been conclusive proof they were insolvent but then it would be considerably different than what the court has asked for that you wonder why the press referred to it as a similar document?

Edited 11 February, 2010 by pedg

[pedg]

The lawyers on both sides would draw up an agreed order, along the lines that the debt has been settled and no further action is required in this matter. It would be presented to the Court as a formality, and the case would be closed.

 

As I said, it wouldn't prevent other petitions, but it would buy time until other petitions get to Court. But, more importantly, it requires somebody to stump up at least £12.1m in cash. Now.

 

But what happens to the report that the court has ordered be drawn up? Would they still expect to receive it even if pompey settle their debts and what would happen to it then if they did?

[hutch]

But what happens to the report that the court has ordered be drawn up? Would they still expect to receive it even if pompey settle their debts and what would happen to it then if they did?

In my experience (commercial rather than insolvency), no. It would not be required.

 

It's not going to happen. They could have avoided this whole issue if they had paid (or agreed to pay) a lot less than this as recently as the day before yesterday. They can't pay.

Edited 11 February, 2010 by hutch

[buctootim]

Wouldn't be surprised if this is what Pompey were attempting. Think they may have miscalculated a bit tho.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article5489650.ece

[Goalie66]

Wouldn't be surprised if this is what Pompey were attempting. Think they may have miscalculated a bit tho.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article5489650.ece

 

Except they never put the company into Voluntary Administration so that argument may be flawed

[Saint Paul C]

Statement of Affairs - did I read somewhere that PFC had already provided this to the PL in January? If so it must prove that the club is solvent or surely the PL would have acted on it?

 

This document could possibly expose the PL to some action also IMHO. If they knew that PartSmurf had been trading illegally and took no action then they may be required to answer some very pointy questions.

[pedg]

Wouldn't be surprised if this is what Pompey were attempting. Think they may have miscalculated a bit tho.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article5489650.ece

 

I would suspect that going into admin would give them the 9 point penalty this season and that coming out of admin in that way without the agreement of HMRC etc would probably give them a large penalty at the beginning of next season.

[hutch]

Wouldn't be surprised if this is what Pompey were attempting. Think they may have miscalculated a bit tho.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article5489650.ece

Yeah, I see the link. It was all going well until he expanded into the fish market. Be warned.

[Pancake]

I would suspect that going into admin would give them the 9 point penalty this season and that coming out of admin in that way without the agreement of HMRC etc would probably give them a large penalty at the beginning of next season.

 

Without being funny, do you honestly think that Gaydamak Jnr/Snr/Fahim/Farj/Chainrai care one jot about where the team will be playing next year? I doubt they do, they might well want to pull this kind of deal off (after all Chainrai is still only a creditor at the moment until FAPPT so coul call in admin) and buy the club back in yet another company backed by a Gaydamak stooge. Then they can flog it for a cut price.

 

The clean money, no matter how small, is better than stacks of dirty money.

[saintbletch]

interesting note in the fa rules re a club that goes into liquidation - 'their results would be declared void'.

Not just league results.

 

So if we win, great, if they win and then lose it court - result scrubbed from the records.

 

Following that logic literally, doesn't that mean that every team Pompey has beaten in the FA Cup this year has a claim to still be in the draw?

 

Chaos.

[positivepete]

An interesting line on their "disputed" VAT.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2010/02/pompey_court_out_but_still_ali.html

 

 

 

Last month, the club's call to remove the VAT from HMRC's winding-up petition was rejected, but the judge did give Pompey the right to appeal, a right they claimed last week and clung on to for dear life in Derrett's court.

 

The rationale for this was described by HMRC's barrister, Michael Gregory QC, as "ingenious", although he said it much the same way Sir Humphrey Appleby used to call Jim Hacker's decisions "brave".

 

With Pompey claiming the wrong party in football transfers (the buyer) has been paying the VAT all these years and nobody has realised, I believe Gregory was being polite.

[Hatch]

Any news on Twitchy?

 

Is he banged up? refused bail, passports confiscated etc etc?

[Goalie66]

I would suspect that going into admin would give them the 9 point penalty this season and that coming out of admin in that way without the agreement of HMRC etc would probably give them a large penalty at the beginning of next season.

 

They cannot go into Admin with a Winding Up order pending , unless a creditor forces them too which is unlikely with the WUO pending !!!!.

[Pancake]

They cannot go into Admin with a Winding Up order pending , unless a creditor forces them too which is unlikely with the WUO pending !!!!.

 

Chainrai is technically a creditor atm.

[Yeovil Saint]

Can't there be some sort of health warning before posting pictures of TCWTB on here, especially around mealtimes?

[View From The Top]

Chainrai is technically a creditor atm.

 

Because he hasn't completed the FTPP?

[Joensuu]

Any news on Twitchy?

 

Is he banged up? refused bail, passports confiscated etc etc?

 

"District Judge Timothy Workman adjourned the case until April 14 and released both men on unconditional bail. "

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/5002058.Ex_Saints_boss_in_court_over_tax_evasion/

[Channon's Sideburns]

Chainrai is technically a creditor atm.

 

But they have to go to the courts to ask for it, don't they?

 

Which, should protect the procedure from mis-use by shady characters....

[pedg]

 

 

The bloke to the side of TTWTB does not look overly happy about his seating position!

[Channon's Sideburns]

"District Judge Timothy Workman adjourned the case until April 14 and released both men on unconditional bail. "

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/5002058.Ex_Saints_boss_in_court_over_tax_evasion/

 

What will be the odds that by April 14th a whole can of worms have been opened...??!!

 

'Yes, we originally charged you with this, but guess what the forensic accountants at PFC recovered....'

 

If I were a Pompey fan....get used to seeing your 'club' dragged through the mud - it ain't over yet.

 

My money's on the whole Finance Director resigning/not resigning/now back on board to be pivotal.

 

Could be wrong, but I am a cynical, suspicious thinking git. ;-)

Edited 11 February, 2010 by Channon's Sideburns
Forgot the bit at the end..bit like Storrie with the HMRC

[Pancake]

But they have to go to the courts to ask for it, don't they?

 

Which, should protect the procedure from mis-use by shady characters....

 

Hmmm, yes you might be right.

[Goalie66]

Chainrai is technically a creditor atm.

 

Yep but he has got two choices. Invest and pay of debts, thereby incurring more personal debt or as a creditor force the company in which he is a major shareholder into admin. He might 10p in the £ on his debt...Oh at that would make him look wondeful in the EPL fit and proper test wouldn't it LOL

[Torres]

 

In his interviews last night Storrie stated that Vantis has been appointed by the Judge. Does anybody know if that's actually true? I believe the judge has ordered PFC to provide the SoA. Where they get it from, or how they prepare it, is up to them, as long as it satisfies the necessary criteria. If it doesn't, I doubt the Judge will have any more patience.

 

That's not true. The first mention of Vantis in the hearing was by PFC's QC who informed the court that Vantis had been appointed to carry out full analysis and report on PFCs financial situation. He also claimed that this would take 3 weeks.

 

Vantis were not appointed by the judge.

[Torres]

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Paying off HMRC will bring the present petition to a close. But it will not prevent new petitions from being issued. What would you do if you were owed money, and found out that if you issue a WUP, you get paid?

 

And criminal proceedings against directors for trading whilst knowingly insolvent are for another Court, in front of a different Judge.

 

One petition was brought by HMRC, 10 other creditors added themselves to it, 9 of which have been paird. The second was brought by someone else, who hasn't been paid, and HMRC have added themselves to it.

 

Settling with HMRC alone will not close either petition.

[Channon's Sideburns]

TBH watching the reports on Meridian/South Today last night I was slightly confused.

 

None of them seemed to mention the requirement for any creditor (NOT THE CLUB) to go to the courts for approval to put them into admin.

 

This they should not have overlooked. We already know that some Pompey fans think they can just 'put themselves into Admin'.

 

It seemed last night, that even Husband and Belvers thought the same as 'Admin was an option' - it isn't.

 

Not to mention the Pompey Soundbiters. Nice of Mr Beech to include his comments on SSN...

 

'Oh it's not a massive game..they're only Division 3 after all'.

 

Indeed. No more motivation for our players than to be written off before the game.

 

We have nothing to lose, and EVERYTHING to gain.

 

Thanks Bob.

[Torres]

so we need to get the court to say - "and can we see the Statement you provided to the PL" as either the Board of PFC provided false data to the PL or the PL allowed an insolvent club to continue

 

They did. As well as the new statement of affairs (to be provided by Vantis on behalf of the club) they also have to submit copies of all documentation provided to the Premier League in January to the court by 4pm 17th Feb.

[dronskisaint]

Gotta knock another '0' off P*mpey's value again. Happy days.

 

How do you knock another zero off zero?

[rallyboy]

you have to think that HMRC are looking at the big legal picture regarding Redknapp, Mandaric, Storrie, Azougy etc...

They must have several investigative teams liasing and sharing info around the winding up and the rest of it, the current delve into the books should assist all ongoing cases.

 

If this is the tip of a dodgy iceberg I suggest we will need to launch a new thread.

To try and cover a further year of investigation into Pompey's illegal trading and tax evasion on here could break the internet itself.

 

Anyway, have we now established that they traded their entire history for a 1-0 win over a bankrupt mid-table championship side?

[Foxy]

They did. As well as the new statement of affairs (to be provided by Vantis on behalf of the club) they also have to submit copies of all documentation provided to the Premier League in January to the court by 4pm 17th Feb.

 

£5 on 'sorry, your High Judgemental Supremacy, but my dog ate it' by 16:03 on 17th from Storrie

[Whitey Grandad]

Because he hasn't completed the FTPP?

The stadium is security against a loan that he gave to the club. The club defaulted on repayments to him which invoked a clause in the loan agreement that means that he takes ownership of the club. Then follows the 'fit and proper person' test before the PL allow him to own it, if I understand it all correctly.

[Whitey Grandad]

More story telling: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=740052&sec=england&cc=5739

Storrie told Soccernet: "The Revenue want £4.7m for the last two months PAYE. We have told them that we would willingly pay them that right now, but they are refusing, unless we also pay them the £7m plus VAT.

 

Right, you would pay the 4.7M at the drop of a hat but could only come up with 1.8M when trying to negotiate with HMRC?

The PAYE is legally due irrespective of the VAT. They cannot choose to withhold it because they dispute the VAT.