krissyboy31 Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Pompey-statement-of-affairs-completed.6078603.jp?CommentPage=2&CommentPageLength=10#comments pompey confident report will be recieved favourably According to SSN the report isn't being handed to PCFC until 2 pm this afternoon, so more BS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Red Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 If we assume that they are trading whilst insolvent they, very quickly need either 1) a new owner to buy them, put money in to make them solvent, 2)or go into administration and be saved. for 1) If they offer the club for £1 as you sometimes hear, someone is going to have to put a lot of money in just to sort debts and is likely to get a CCC team needing investment - is this at all attractive? for 2) they will then be certain of relegation, but you would be able to get a CCC club relatively cheaply. Although they would need investment, could this be reasonably attractive investment? 2 would mean that someone independent (are Vatis really?) would handle the admin and every (possibly, alledgedly, maybe...) shady, irregular, dodgy, dare I say corrupt, detail will come out. Anyone buying from the administrator will have to decide what another 30 point deduction for the irregularities is worth. Luton anybody.... and they did next to nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8519941.stm is this old news? I couldn't see a link on here which is surprising. My guess is the government over there want to get this guy under wraps before he causes any mor embaressment to the country. now who do I drop from my top ten? 1. Redcrap - charged with football corruption/tax evasion 2. Tells strories - charged with football corruption tax evasion 3. 64 `PFC supporters' - Guilty banned for football hooligansim after derby game 4. Bond - investigated for football coruption 5. Azougly - providing false evidence in court 6. Venables - Disqualified from acting as a director 7. Johnson - On the spot fine for stealing toilet seat 8. Quinn - Guilty of driving whilst banned and neglecting racehorses 9. Rix - Guilty of underage sex and indecent assault 10. PFCs real owner Gaydamak Sr - Guilty of illegal arms sales oh and if you don't like any of them there is always Alan Biley's haircut. Criminal. Treat yourself and have a top eleven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 sorry to quote myself, but as this gets lost on the previous page any thoughts?:confused: Nick, the report has been filed and the Directors are still there. If it was black and white that they were trading insolvently, they would have resigned or would certainly be expected to by the end of today. ( I would imagine that Chainrai and Saha have renegociated their debt repayment timescales, which would help enormously with regard to whether they are insolvent) Whilst I am sure they could find a creditor to put them into Admin, they can no longer go down that path themselves and have shown no inclination (For whatever reason) to go down that route. They are playing roulette and willing to take the gamble. It probably all hinges now on your first point as to whether they can get a new owner by the 1st , who is willing to pump significant money in to keep them going, take on 50 million pounds worth of debt and give the revenue 11.5 million quid in 10 days time for what is almost certainly now a CC club, with the very real prospects of future points deductions based on the way they have run the club historically................. That's a very very very rich fan you need to help you out of those circumstances. However, they continue to fight and regardless of what the SOA does or doesnt say the fact remains they have up until the 1st to find 11.5 million pounds in cash .... not promises. It may well be that the pl have agree to help them out, but if we go past today without resignations or administration, then they beleive they have something to fight with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 Nick, the report has been filed and the Directors are still there. I'll repeat what SSN reported live from the High Court less than an hour ago. Vantis are still working on the report and are expecting to hand it over at 2 pm. Therefore what was reported in the Snooze was BS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsland Red Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 Glad Al Fahim's warrant has been issued in Dubai as this ties in nicely with John Terry and his missus, which is the only other off the pitch related story doing the rounds, that until the warrant, couldn't be linked to Pompey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ART Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 If the Premiership decide to help thieving criminal clubs like Poopey then it's time other clubs like ourselves who went into Administration united together and take them to court. I'm not saying clubs who also were involved in dodgey dealings but especially those who invested, who built new stadiums or made big improvements. Poopey make my blood boil in that no debt was actually done to improving the fans match day experience or providing a new stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 (edited) I'll repeat what SSN reported live from the High Court less than an hour ago. Vantis are still working on the report and are expecting to hand it over at 2 pm. Therefore what was reported in the Snooze was BS! I seriously doubt that they would leave themselves two hours to get from pompey to London, to deliver it by four. A couple of pages back , I believe that it has been linked to being a criminal offence for them not to have sent it by then. Also the news , has direct quotes from vantis. Edited 17 February, 2010 by Gemmel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussexsaint Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 I cannot get it out of my mind that Chainrai (sp?) is going to bail the out till the end of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 I seriously doubt that they would leave themselves two hours to get from pompey to London, to deliver it by four. A couple of pages back , I believe that it has been linked to being a criminal offence for them not to have sent it by then. Also the news , has direct quotes from vantis. Just a long shot, but perhaps they printed two copies..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsland Red Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 I'll repeat what SSN reported live from the High Court less than an hour ago. Vantis are still working on the report and are expecting to hand it over at 2 pm. Therefore what was reported in the Snooze was BS! Maybe Vantis have run out of comb binders or glossy covers. I'm sure that those Pompey directors that aren't promoting chess in some far flung place would have had the opportunity to read the final proof of the document this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 Just a long shot, but perhaps they printed two copies..... would the skates have to pay extra for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwertySFC Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_city/article4692365.ece I know it is very old news but reading this just makes me laugh everytime I read it , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merovingian Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 I'll repeat what SSN reported live from the High Court less than an hour ago. Vantis are still working on the report and are expecting to hand it over at 2 pm. Therefore what was reported in the Snooze was BS! lol - do you actually believe either of those sources - I cannot believe you are putting your faith in SSN let alone anything else. Of course Sky Sports News have a direct link to the Fratton Boardroom don't they ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 As far as i am aware Portsmouth will get their report once it has been handed to HMRC. So if it has yet to be handed in then they do not know what is in there so thus how can they say they are "confident it will be favourable"? If they saw the report before it was completed then they could try and change things in the report, which would then make the reports actual biasdness questionable would it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Keith Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 massive ****ing lol. have a look now at the bbc sport homepage :finga: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussexsaint Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 As far as i am aware Portsmouth will get their report once it has been handed to HMRC. So if it has yet to be handed in then they do not know what is in there so thus how can they say they are "confident it will be favourable"? If they saw the report before it was completed then they could try and change things in the report, which would then make the reports actual biasdness questionable would it not? I am pretty sure Vantis have been employed by PFC and the report is not being handed to HMRC but to the court. Fairly sure that Vantis would let their employers see the report prior to it going to court - out of all the things on here I have trouble believing that isn't one of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merovingian Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 One would assume that Portsmouth could possibly ask how the report looks and gain an indication without having to see it. One could also assume that the finance manager will of had to furnish all the info to Vantis. She should have a good idea of how the club is looking regarding insolvency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 One would assume that Portsmouth could possibly ask how the report looks and gain an indication without having to see it. One could also assume that the finance manager will of had to furnish all the info to Vantis. She should have a good idea of how the club is looking regarding insolvency I'm still intrigued and suspicious of her reason(s) for standing down as Finance Director but retaining the position Finance Manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 massive ****ing lol. have a look now at the bbc sport homepage :finga: Why they cannot get their facts right again? Al Fahim owes 1.2 Billion, not 1.2 million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 As Gemmel has stated if there are no resignations then they have something to fight for. I dont know how many games they have between now and the court appearance but if they happened to win 2 and close the gap ,somebody may be a tad more interested. Also they seem to know every move to avoid justice and so their demise is not yet here.I think if the court appearance had not been put back to the 1st of march they would be goners, that extra 10 or so days is going to save them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 As far as i am aware Portsmouth will get their report once it has been handed to HMRC. So if it has yet to be handed in then they do not know what is in there so thus how can they say they are "confident it will be favourable"? If they saw the report before it was completed then they could try and change things in the report, which would then make the reports actual biasdness questionable would it not? Im pretty sure PFC will have seen the final draft in advance. Its their report, they paid for it and they supplied the information to Vantis. Vantis will simply write a report largely based on what they've been told and fairly limited digging by their staff. Just like audited reports there will be a disclaimer saying effectively - "we have come to these conclusions based on what weve been told and shown. If its wrong dont blame us we're not liable -they are". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 I seriously doubt that they would leave themselves two hours to get from pompey to London, to deliver it by four. A couple of pages back , I believe that it has been linked to being a criminal offence for them not to have sent it by then. Also the news , has direct quotes from vantis. The Sky reporter said he had asked Vantis why it was going so close to the wire and their reply was that these sort have reports usually take 3 weeks to prepare and they only had 7 days, so have been working around the clock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussexsaint Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 that extra 10 or so days is going to save them. Yip, my feelings also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 I'm still intrigued and suspicious of her reason(s) for standing down as Finance Director but retaining the position Finance Manager. She doesnt want to be personally liable as a director but still needs to earn a wage to pay the mortgage and feed the kids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SO16_Saint Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 supposing they dont submit the papers by 1600, they will be in contempt of court - would the case be adjourned further, thus buying themselves MORE time?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamesaint Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 ;-) I'm still intrigued and suspicious of her reason(s) for standing down as Finance Director but retaining the position Finance Manager. Possibly because a Finance Director can be sued if a business is found to be trading insolvently. A Finance Manager cannot ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansums Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 One would assume that Portsmouth could possibly ask how the report looks and gain an indication without having to see it. One could also assume that the finance manager will of had to furnish all the info to Vantis. She should have a good idea of how the club is looking regarding insolvency I've got a good idea how the club is looking: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 Possibly because a Finance Director can be sued if a business is found to be trading insolvently. A Finance Manager cannot ??? That was what I was hinting at (probably badly), but I presume she would still be in trouble personally if they were found to be trading insolvently? It would be pretty obvious as to the reason she resigned as FD, after all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 As far as i am aware Portsmouth will get their report once it has been handed to HMRC. So if it has yet to be handed in then they do not know what is in there so thus how can they say they are "confident it will be favourable"? If they saw the report before it was completed then they could try and change things in the report, which would then make the reports actual biasdness questionable would it not? They will see it; one of them will have to sign an affidavit that it is true etc... this is why they are stuck between a rock and a hard place as it ramps up the responsibility stakes somewhat on the directors if they sign an affidavit swearing that a statement of affairs which shows them to be insolvent is accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 Treat yourself and have a top eleven ..or a round dozen, and a baker's dozen if you need to push it a bit. The haircut should stay in though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 They will see it; one of them will have to sign an affidavit that it is true etc... this is why they are stuck between a rock and a hard place as it ramps up the responsibility stakes somewhat on the directors if they sign an affidavit swearing that a statement of affairs which shows them to be insolvent is accurate. Or solvent, when anybody who knows anything about insolvency can see that they are blatantly not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 That was what I was hinting at (probably badly), but I presume she would still be in trouble personally if they were found to be trading insolvently? It would be pretty obvious as to the reason she resigned as FD, after all... True, but having found herself in the deep do-does she may feel it's the best way out. If she left too early she might have thought that her dodgy employee would have used the fact against her. She's probably been busy firing off emails CCd to all and sundry to cover her back. Isn't she a fairly recent arrival? Not all promotions are worth having... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 One would assume that Portsmouth could possibly ask how the report looks and gain an indication without having to see it. One could also assume that the finance manager will of had to furnish all the info to Vantis. She should have a good idea of how the club is looking regarding insolvency And also : Be responsible for paying the wages on time Make sure that less or equal amounts of money go out as come in Pay the bills Pay the taxman Pay other football clubs And numerous other responsibilities no doubt, that she has failed to carry out so far in the past 6 months, so I wouldn't be too confident of her ability to gauge the solvency or otherwise of PFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastcowzer Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 So, if Directors now know, I'm assuming Storrie-teller will be handing in his resignation, followed by a swift and emotional ballad of 'I did it all for Portsmouth' Does the UK have an extradition treaty with the Peoples Republic of Hayling Island. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 One would assume that Portsmouth could possibly ask how the report looks and gain an indication without having to see it. One could also assume that the finance manager will of had to furnish all the info to Vantis. She should have a good idea of how the club is looking regarding insolvency I'm still intrigued and suspicious of her reason(s) for standing down as Finance Director but retaining the position Finance Manager. Here's a possibility (entirely speculation on my part, I hasten to add): It was mentioned in a Guardian article that Vantis had been brought in to Pompey some time back by Tanya Robins, and that when Azougy (who was, of course, never a director at all ) realised this he immediately gave them their marching orders. Might it be the case that Robins, as FD of PFC, feared that the company may be trading insolvently, and called in accountants - specialists in this field - to investigate? Realising what was going on, Azougy got shot of them as quick as he could. Robbins then resigned as a director, as she could see the way things were headed. As a director she could be liable; as a manager she can't. As I say, pure speculation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxy Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Pompey-statement-of-affairs-completed.6078603.jp?CommentPage=2&CommentPageLength=10#comments pompey confident report will be recieved favourably Well, we all enjoy a laugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 supposing they dont submit the papers by 1600, they will be in contempt of court - would the case be adjourned further, thus buying themselves MORE time?? As I read it they would be: 1) In contempt of court 2) Judged to be insolvent & wound up as of then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merovingian Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 Might it be the case that Robins, as FD of PFC, feared that the company may be trading insolvently, and called in accountants - specialists in this field - to investigate? Realising what was going on, Azougy got shot of them as quick as he could. Robbins then resigned as a director, as she could see the way things were headed. As a director she could be liable; as a manager she can't. As I say, pure speculation... Close - Azougy supposedly did have a part to play and alledgedly forced her off the board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amesbury Saint Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 Does the UK have an extradition treaty with the Peoples Republic of Hayling Island. ? do we want him back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Pompey-statement-of-affairs-completed.6078603.jp?CommentPage=2&CommentPageLength=10#comments pompey confident report will be recieved favourably But will The court...... But the club's 2008 accounts, signed off by Grant Thornton's Southampton office on 27 February last year, contained no qualifications about the club's financial situation. A pre-tax loss of £16.8m on turnover of £70.5m (better than the previous year's £23.4m on £40.2m revenues at least) could have set alarm bells ringing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastcowzer Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 Possibly because a Finance Director can be sued if a business is found to be trading insolvently. A Finance Manager cannot ??? I was under the impression that she had been re-instated as Finance Director on the 'alleged' departure of Azougy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
for_heaven's_Saint Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 haha, just got in and seen there's a warrant for al Fahim's arrest in Dubai. Classic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 I was under the impression that she had been re-instated as Finance Director on the 'alleged' departure of Azougy. Azougy was still there for the High Court hearing. Of course he was only a 'consultant' not an employee/Director. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 haha' date=' just got in and seen there's a warrant for al Fahim's arrest in Dubai. Classic[/quote'] I do wonder if this could be used as a delaying tactic ! " Sorry M'Lud but our chairman has not has a chance to read the SOA produced by Vantis, because he cannot leave the Chess competition in Moscow on fear of being arrested" !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 SSN say Portsmouth have yet to receive the report Meaning they have under an hour to get it and hand it to HMRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
for_heaven's_Saint Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 SSN say Portsmouth have yet to receive the report Meaning they have under an hour to get it and hand it to HMRC What exactly happens if they don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 SSN say Portsmouth have yet to receive the report Meaning they have under an hour to get it and hand it to HMRC Pompey are probably about to deny that they even have to produce one.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxy Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 What exactly happens if they don't? Slapped three times sharply across the buttocks with a wet lettuce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andysstuff Posted 17 February, 2010 Share Posted 17 February, 2010 SSN say Portsmouth have yet to receive the report Meaning they have under an hour to get it and hand it to HMRC Or it could mean they don't get to see it before the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts