Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

Danish Saint

Danish Saint

Posted
Posted

After reading the Swindon bit about their administrator AA (Anonymous Alcoholic?), I'd say that administration (if legal) is only the beginning of something far worse.... and for this thread to go on and on....

 

I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for the fans (PES and such, not Corp Ho et all). It's becoming a farce. Just let PCFC liquidate and let AFC P*mp*y start in the Wessex League.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted
IMO....yes, the WO is only 'stayed', not dismissed.

 

Because a Full Day has now been allocated for the next hearing.

 

IF PCFC cannot provide the court with the requested answers THEN the last act of the Court on that day will be to issue the WUO.

 

That part is very clear.

 

It will be the presentations of evidence and the direction which that takes the hearing which will determine whether they have to reach that decision.

 

Is the Admin "Legitimate"

 

ie investigate the Chanrai position and money trail

 

Are there funds to ensure that Creditors Liabilities do not INCREASE during an admin period?

 

not according to the SoA and a "Letter" or "Proof of Funds" will not be acceptable

 

Will any Administrator take on the project should the Court decide to appoint a different one from "that which is tainted by a Shadow"?

 

Now, if I was Storrie, Chanrai and Android there are a few minor details and items I would have in my armoury for that meeting. The more I see public statements the less I think they are really working on getting those in place.

 

I simply cannot believe for one minute that the Court would accept "I am going to meet the PL next week to allow us to sell players" as a defence. They have to have that in writing and confirmed by a PL lawyer (for example)

 

When you hold a low hand at Poker you have to bluff. We are seeing Corporate Speak for Bluffing in the Media

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted

When you hold a low hand at Poker you have to bluff. We are seeing Corporate Speak for Bluffing in the Media

 

and it looks to me that they are following the maxim that the worse the hand the bigger the bluff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted (edited)
Sky reporting that as far as the meeting of prem chairman is concerned skates are not in administration

 

That isn't what they said. It was David Gold that believed they weren't and he is clearly wrong based on what happened in court.

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gingeletiss

Gingeletiss

Posted
Posted

So it's Comical Al's fault, nope it's Al Mirage, wrong it's Storrie teller, ha ha, wrong again, it's the PL's fault.Well none of them, according to this chap it's.........

 

 

PompeyLor Posted on 04/03/2010 12:53

The taxman

Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message

Why is it that there's no questions about why the tax people allowed such a debt to accrue over such a long period? They could've nipped it in the bud over the last 7 years but have let it go on and on. Hardly rocket science thinking to imagine things are bit dodgy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bongo badger

Bongo badger

Posted
Posted
I have seen nothing which suggests the court have granted HMRC's wish to examine Fuglars client account relating to PFC transactions.

 

IF Chainrai was paid £2m out of that account in February is that in breach of the WUO against PFC?

 

If the answer is yes Fuglars & Chainrai needs to get themselves off the hook. How do they do that? By saying it was not money from PFC but from Falcondrone.

 

But then they will have admitted that the loan was to Falcondrone (which is what Ms Robbins said in her statement of affairs document) and that takes away Chainrai's secured creditor status.

 

Love this very short summary, it says it all

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Colinjb

Colinjb

Posted
Posted
So it's Comical Al's fault, nope it's Al Mirage, wrong it's Storrie teller, ha ha, wrong again, it's the PL's fault.Well none of them, according to this chap it's.........

 

 

PompeyLor Posted on 04/03/2010 12:53

The taxman

Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message

Why is it that there's no questions about why the tax people allowed such a debt to accrue over such a long period? They could've nipped it in the bud over the last 7 years but have let it go on and on. Hardly rocket science thinking to imagine things are bit dodgy!

 

HA!

 

What are they meant to do?

 

HMRC: 'Your bill is £XXXXXXXXX, may we have it please?'

PFC: 'Hold on........'

HMRC: 'We really need it now......'

PFC: 'Yeah yeah, bare with us........'

HMRC: 'How about now?'

PFC: '...............................................................................'

HMRC: 'Hello? Hello?......'

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bucks Saint

Bucks Saint

Posted
Posted
So it's Comical Al's fault, nope it's Al Mirage, wrong it's Storrie teller, ha ha, wrong again, it's the PL's fault.Well none of them, according to this chap it's.........

 

 

PompeyLor Posted on 04/03/2010 12:53

The taxman

Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message

Why is it that there's no questions about why the tax people allowed such a debt to accrue over such a long period? They could've nipped it in the bud over the last 7 years but have let it go on and on. Hardly rocket science thinking to imagine things are bit dodgy!

 

Brilliant. The Taxman should stop all companies from making sales of anything and employing anyone, just in case they dont pay over the VAT and PAYE/ NIC that arises. Genius!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted (edited)

Looks like androids got his hands full. 12 chancers interested in pompey. Looks like he's not falling for the IOU's in crayon.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/04/portsmouth-12-buyers-administration

The administrator revealed he had already met two parties who had shown him proof of funds and he had sent them away and asked them to bring him even more "transparent proof".

 

Maybe he means this sort of transparent proof??

 

smirnoff.jpg

Edited by pedg
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foxstone

Foxstone

Posted
Posted
Looks like androids got his hands full. 12 chancers interested in pompey. Looks like he's not falling for the IOU's in crayon.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/04/portsmouth-12-buyers-administration

 

The administrator revealed he had already met two parties who had shown him proof of funds and he had sent them away and asked them to bring him even more "transparent proof".

 

Or even "come back with more transparent bags full of readies" !

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crab Lungs

Crab Lungs

Posted
Posted
So it's Comical Al's fault, nope it's Al Mirage, wrong it's Storrie teller, ha ha, wrong again, it's the PL's fault.Well none of them, according to this chap it's.........

 

 

PompeyLor Posted on 04/03/2010 12:53

The taxman

Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message

Why is it that there's no questions about why the tax people allowed such a debt to accrue over such a long period? They could've nipped it in the bud over the last 7 years but have let it go on and on. Hardly rocket science thinking to imagine things are bit dodgy!

 

LOL, genius.

 

I wish I had the time to go through this thread with all the excerpts from Portsmouth fans and document them. They really have to be one, if not the most, stupid fans ever.

 

And they squeal like girls about everything, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Channon's Sideburns

Channon's Sideburns

Posted
Posted
LOL, genius.

 

I wish I had the time to go through this thread with all the excerpts from Portsmouth fans and document them. They really have to be one, if not the most, stupid fans ever.

 

And they squeal like girls about everything, too.

 

I'm waiting patiently for 'when' they go pop for Solent to repeat that old Trogg who said before the Derby...

 

'We are Portsmouth, they are Southampton. Goodbye'

 

Indeed.......:-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigShadow

BigShadow

Posted
Posted
Looks like androids got his hands full. 12 chancers interested in pompey. Looks like he's not falling for the IOU's in crayon.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/04/portsmouth-12-buyers-administration

The administrator revealed he had already met two parties who had shown him proof of funds and he had sent them away and asked them to bring him even more "transparent proof".

 

Maybe he means this sort of transparent proof??

 

 

Hmmmm.....didn't know they made transparent brown paper envelopes. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bobbyboy

Bobbyboy

Posted
Posted
Did I hear someone mention in passing the other night that there was still the distinct possibility that they might be going down with no money in the bank?

 

I don't know if anyone else heard that rumour.

 

I heard that they didn't have a bank. Not sure if that's the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Under Weststand

Under Weststand

Posted
Posted

Not had much time to spend on here last couple of days, so Android values Poopey at 30-mill bargain for Um? some dodgy players best posible value 19/20-mill and a name erm nothing else. Oh silly me I almost forgot they do have the bestest fans in the whole wide world & TCWTB. We cost in the region of 14-million for a new stadium, decent training facilities, plot of potential prime building land(in the future) plus a bunch of dodgy players. Can't quite see the value in Poopey??

WTF is that Gold comment supposed to mean on Sky, Seems to me it's him putting spin on the fact that the EPL won't ratify the Admin until the court either ratify Admin or Armageddon ensues.

That was a very interesting read from the cat http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/mar/04/glazer-family-manchester-united-red-knights

Another story which could have been lifted of here as alluded to by a couple on here previously.

Maybe just maybe its all beginning to unravel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chin Strain

Chin Strain

Posted
Posted
This is where you and I differ. I don't think Chanrai lent any money to PCFC and he is not about to start, now. The only way a newly appointed receveiver will allow PCFC to continue trading, is if there is cash in the bank to allow it to, without making the existing creditors positions worse. The only way that will happen is via a cash advance from the EPL, the sale of assets, i.e. players, or the injection of equity (not a loan) from the shareholders or a new investor. Apart from those three options, I'm struggling to figure out other ways of keeping this circus going.

 

I think that the suggestion of impropriety, particularly when the HMRC get to review the activity in the Fuglers client account, with regard to the administration, may mean that the whole money laundering suspicion surrounding this rotting corpse may push the judge in a completely new direction. I don't think there is a "poor little guy" in this case. It's more like "big rich crooks" that are the major creditors and I would love it if the judge winds the club up and allows these gun running crooks to dangle in the wind.

 

I agree. Jacob basically stuffed up in October when Portpin leant the money to Falcondrone. Jacob drew up a charge on FP, which is a PCFC asset and, unfortunately for his career at Fuglers, forgot that the money should have gone directly to PCFC as Falcondrone only owned 90% of that asset. He realised the exposed position of Portpin in January and tried to fiddle the charge - too late, WUP in place.

 

The only way Chanrai would stump cash to PCFC now would be if he had a deal in place to swipe the sky money (which would surely have to go to the Administrator to pay out). If, as expected, he's proven to be an unsecured creditor, I'd imagine he'd be going after Al Faraj and Jacob (if he can find either). That would finish his involvement with PCFC and leave them high and dry with regards funding.

 

Ka-boom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted
LOL, genius.

 

I wish I had the time to go through this thread with all the excerpts from Portsmouth fans and document them. They really have to be one, if not the most, stupid fans ever.

 

And they squeal like girls about everything, too.

 

 

I did start a thread to save these on. If you find one save it for posterity sort of thing - nobody even bothered except for me...:mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted
I agree. Jacob basically stuffed up in October when Portpin leant the money to Falcondrone. Jacob drew up a charge on FP, which is a PCFC asset and, unfortunately for his career at Fuglers, forgot that the money should have gone directly to PCFC as Falcondrone only owned 90% of that asset. He realised the exposed position of Portpin in January and tried to fiddle the charge - too late, WUP in place.

 

The only way Chanrai would stump cash to PCFC now would be if he had a deal in place to swipe the sky money (which would surely have to go to the Administrator to pay out). If, as expected, he's proven to be an unsecured creditor, I'd imagine he'd be going after Al Faraj and Jacob (if he can find either). That would finish his involvement with PCFC and leave them high and dry with regards funding.

 

Ka-boom.

 

Instead of the "for want of a nail the horse was lost"

 

I think this moves towards the "for want of a piece of paper the fish were lost"

 

Meanwhile, on a different subject - the Guardian article - seems we websters need to have words with thw Admins.

 

If "Football Communities" are the way to go forwards and the US model is an example, this means that in 2017 this footballing community of TSW could be worth Billions.

 

I vote we use the PCFC approach and ask for that money now. We can them use that so that The Muppet show buys Man Ure, the Lounge buy Liverpool, The Arts Thread buys Arsenal etc and then we can screw the lot over and read about it on the Saints Thread as we win the CL for the 3rd year in a row...

 

Well, that logic is as sound as anything uttered from that end of the M27 this week

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marc_saint

marc_saint

Posted
Posted

This was the first ever post on this thread. Many months ago.

 

Although not Saints related I thought, today of all days, this news (which has just come to me from an excellent well-placed source in P*mpey) deserves a position on the main forum. I am told news of the collapse will officially emerge in the next few days.

This is not a wind-up. I don't usually "do" gloating but with the mod's permission can I indulge myself just a little?

 

Perhaps today (July 8th) should now be made a public holiday in Hants.

 

Wouldn't it be rather ironic if the skates managed to get through to July 8th.

If they go pop on that date, I reckon every 8th July thereafter should be declared "Fitzhugh Fella Day" :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Channon's Sideburns

Channon's Sideburns

Posted
Posted
Instead of the "for want of a nail the horse was lost"

 

I think this moves towards the "for want of a piece of paper the fish were lost"

 

Meanwhile, on a different subject - the Guardian article - seems we websters need to have words with thw Admins.

 

If "Football Communities" are the way to go forwards and the US model is an example, this means that in 2017 this footballing community of TSW could be worth Billions.

 

I vote we use the PCFC approach and ask for that money now. We can them use that so that The Muppet show buys Man Ure, the Lounge buy Liverpool, The Arts Thread buys Arsenal etc and then we can screw the lot over and read about it on the Saints Thread as we win the CL for the 3rd year in a row...

 

Well, that logic is as sound as anything uttered from that end of the M27 this week

 

I vote that we go on Dragons Den with that idea.

 

Can't see Duncan Bannatyne saying no. :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chin Strain

Chin Strain

Posted
Posted
Did I hear someone mention in passing the other night that there was still the distinct possibility that they might be going down with no money in the bank?

 

I don't know if anyone else heard that rumour.

 

I saw Rickie Lambert last night and, I don't know if you know, but I would estimate that he stood at nearly 6 ft 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Fan CaM

Saint Fan CaM

Posted
Posted

It's one thing analysing the whotsit out of the court proceedings etc etc., but the simple fact remains that Pimpley have been given ANOTHER stay of execution. Has anyone really thought about why TWO weeks? And why will the PL not rule on the points deduction like every other club?!?

 

It seems to me that there are certain parties that are colluding to keep them in business until the end of the season at the very least - thus helping them without having to show publically that they've been helped. It seems that it is in somebodies interest (other than PFC's) to keep the wolf from the door and not deal with the fall-out. I would wager that in two weeks time we'll still not see a resolution to the matter and PFC will still be 'in business' and therefore still effectively trading insolvently. I just wish one of their relegation or FA Cup rivals had the balls to question or even legally challenge the PL over the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bucks Saint

Bucks Saint

Posted
Posted
I would wager that in two weeks time we'll still not see a resolution to the matter and PFC will still be 'in business' and therefore still effectively trading insolvently.

 

I just wish one of their relegation or FA Cup rivals had the balls to question or even legally challenge the PL over the matter.

 

Oh if only Sheffield United were one of those. Played one, won one against the PL (well against West Ham at least)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted

A question for our Learned Counsels.

 

Is there not a process whereby if a company is having financial difficulties and is intending to seek the protection of Administration, an owner of office can approach the Court and "Seek Protection"? There is I believe a number of days when this can be done.

 

Did Bournemouth not take a similar route prior to their Admin?

 

The protection stops the disposal of assets or cash being removed from the company.

 

If such a process exists, would it not be a valid question to ask why PCFC or it's owners did not seek to go down this road?

 

Was it ignorance, arrogance or something more "Curiouser and Curiouser" which may be laying like the London Road UXB in wait for their next Court visit?

 

And a second question with regard to "Preffered Creditors".

 

We know that Footballing Debts are scrosanct, so the Administrator is second in the list. So Should the PL use the TV & Parachute Money to pay off the existing Football Debt and players wages, this would place The Administrator second in the queue to gain any access to funds to pay his bills. That may be enough to deter some professional operations should the Court decide to appoint their own "Official Receiver"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bucks Saint

Bucks Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
A question for our Learned Counsels.

 

Is there not a process whereby if a company is having financial difficulties and is intending to seek the protection of Administration, an owner of office can approach the Court and "Seek Protection"? There is I believe a number of days when this can be done.

 

Did Bournemouth not take a similar route prior to their Admin?

 

The protection stops the disposal of assets or cash being removed from the company.

 

If such a process exists, would it not be a valid question to ask why PCFC or it's owners did not seek to go down this road?

 

Was it ignorance, arrogance or something more "Curiouser and Curiouser" which may be laying like the London Road UXB in wait for their next Court visit?

 

And a second question with regard to "Preffered Creditors".

 

We know that Footballing Debts are scrosanct, so the Administrator is second in the list. So Should the PL use the TV & Parachute Money to pay off the existing Football Debt and players wages, this would place The Administrator second in the queue to gain any access to funds to pay his bills. That may be enough to deter some professional operations should the Court decide to appoint their own "Official Receiver"

 

 

YES. Directors or shareholders can file for Administration. In fact, they can do this out of court, i.e. a Court order is not required, provided a number of circumstances exist.

 

This was open to them only up to the time that HMRC filed their Winding Up Petition. From that point on, it was no longer possible. Only a Creditor could file an Application for Adminstration, with the Court.

 

Why did they not do this? Who knows - perhaps they convinced themselves they could avoid insolvency all together. The fact that they went to the High Court, and came very very close to having a WU Order made remains impossible to understand. Blind ignorance maybe or just playing with fire.

 

Yes the payment of Footy creditors first could well deter another IP. In fact all the negative publicity, plus the Court Action by HMRC, as well as the risk of not being paid, have clearly put off many IPs. But we have Andy!

 

Dont get confused with the title Official Receiver. He is a DTI official, and will only come into play when and if the Winding Up Order is made. Then he gets appointed. But he will never be the Administrator

Edited by Bucks Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crab Lungs

Crab Lungs

Posted
Posted
Just posted on The News website.....under this article:

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Pompey-administrator-slams-HMRC.6122599.jp

 

Guess which comment was mine....:D

 

Wonder if any of the locals will understand.....

 

Je-heee-sus!

 

a few interesting excerpts just to show how out of touch/thick/babyish some of them are:

 

Seems like Andrew Andronikou is on the ball ! PUP

 

It's time someone hit out at HMRC. OK so they are owed money but that does not give them the right to act in an unreasonable manner. As I have written before officers at HMRC are only appointed by having unpleasant and unreasonable personalities. As I have asked twice before but no answers posted, has anyone living in Portsmouth contacted their MP to ask them to enquire of HMRC why they are taking such an unreasonable and irrational attitude to PFC?

 

I am hugely impressed by this man's professionalism

 

Well if he's got the evidence then the court not the tax man will rule in the favour of the club. I applaud his fighting talk. HMRC are bullies and this guy ain't gonna be bullied!!

 

And... a buzzing Fratton is expected as the blue few really answer the rallying call... here is the crowning pile of doggie do-do:

 

A sell out for Saturday - 300 tickets left

 

I believe their first sell out of the season! Congratulations (almost)

 

Some of their fans of there are quite switched on and WANT answers and rightly so - quite a turnaround from a few weeks back when they didn't know who to blame and were pretty quick to jump on Claridge's back, despite him speaking the harsh, cold reality of truth...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted
YES. Directors or shareholders can file for Administration. In fact, they can do this out of court, i.e. a Court order is not required, provided a number of circumstances exist.

 

This was open to them only up to the time that HMRC filed their Winding Up Petition. From that point on, it was no longer possible. Only a Creditor could file an Application for Adminstration, with the Court.

 

Why did they not do this? Who knows - perhaps they convinced themselves they could avoid insolvency all together. The fact that they went to the High Court, and came very very close to having a WU Order made remains impossible to understand. Blind ignorance maybe or just playing with fire.

 

Yes the payment of Footy creditors first could well deter another IP. In fact all the negative publicity, plus the Court Action by HMRC, as well as the risk of not being paid, have clearly put off many IPs. But we have Andy!

 

Dont get confused with the title Official Receiver. He is a DTI official, and will only come into play when and if the Winding Up Order is made. Then he gets appointed. But he will never be the Administrator

 

 

Thanks.

 

So the question remains even more Curious.

 

Directors or shareholders can file for Administration.... only up to the time that HMRC filed their Winding Up Petition

 

They were officers of a Company.

SURELY they must have produced monthly accounts

SURELY they must have known the state of those Accounts

SURELY they must have known that HMRC had threatened them with a WUO even before they went to court.

 

So, for the Few who continue to seek someone to blame, the ANSWER lies in the timelines leading up to the issuance of the notice of the WUO back in (December was it?)

 

The blame lies with The Officers (ie Storrie et al) or with the Owner Al Mirage.

 

It comes back to the decision making skills, the grasp of reality and what was really going on with the multiple owners.

 

The comments from AA about proof of funds even from the two groups he has spoken to, indicates that Storrie was - for the safety of the Football Club - Criminally Naive. It is clear he bet the future of the club on Black. It came up in the red.

 

Oh, and if anyone ever needs any personal or professional legal advice I would suggest steering VERY clear of anyone who has ever worked with PCFC

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Channon's Sideburns

Channon's Sideburns

Posted
Posted
Thanks.

 

So the question remains even more Curious.

 

 

 

They were officers of a Company.

SURELY they must have produced monthly accounts

SURELY they must have known the state of those Accounts

SURELY they must have known that HMRC had threatened them with a WUO even before they went to court.

 

So, for the Few who continue to seek someone to blame, the ANSWER lies in the timelines leading up to the issuance of the notice of the WUO back in (December was it?)

 

The blame lies with The Officers (ie Storrie et al) or with the Owner Al Mirage.

 

It comes back to the decision making skills, the grasp of reality and what was really going on with the multiple owners.

 

The comments from AA about proof of funds even from the two groups he has spoken to, indicates that Storrie was - for the safety of the Football Club - Criminally Naive. It is clear he bet the future of the club on Black. It came up in the red.

 

Oh, and if anyone ever needs any personal or professional legal advice I would suggest steering VERY clear of anyone who has ever worked with PCFC

 

 

Phil,

 

And then we factor in what laughing boy said in his resignation letter...

 

What was it? Something about not being allowed to attend company meetings or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
The game they are trying to play, is their game, not the one HMRC are playing. It's not really about who is the administrator but whether Chanrai/Portpin are secured creditors and rank ahead of HMRC, IMO. Any play by PCFC to avoid that question being answered by letting the administrator to fall on his sword, will fail. That question and the general ownership, creditor and movement of funds "mysteries" need solving in court...

I don't think we differ here, Guided. Yes, they should play by the rules and do what they're told. But they're at liberty to play the game in any way they see fit, however misguided (no pun intended) that may be. I was speculating on how, based on what I've seen, I think they'll play it, not whether I think it's right, or whether I think they'll win.

 

Interesting silence for the past few days from Balou and his spokesperson.

 

Interesting absence from the scene of Jacobs

 

As for the what could happen debate. Does anyone really think that the words "There is a Shadow...." simply mean the process of appointment of Hacker?

 

Hutch's points list - 1) The process is a problem leads to PCFC asking the court to appoint an administrator - who is Hacker?

 

Simply cannot see that. Hackers would have been shown to have not carried out full Due Dilligence of the situation - they took on an "improper" admin? Cannot see HMRC or the Court allowing them to continue, and that is without any of the perceived links between Chanrai & Hacker that we have spotted.

I agree entirely. I said in my post that, IMO, the Court will NOT appoint Andy & Co. I said that I expect them to ask for that.

 

The failure of Chanrai/Portpin to appoint Vantis, says everything you need to know about the administration...

100%

 

I have seen nothing which suggests the court have granted HMRC's wish to examine Fuglars client account relating to PFC transactions.

From the report on the proceedings in the Portsmouth News at http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Pompey-to-go-back-before.6115398.jp

 

"
There was also questions raised over money transferred between Balram Chainrai and Falcondrone - the company which owns 90 per cent of Pompey - which the judge said could lead to the administration becoming invalid.

 

The judge has now ordered the club to produce evidence of the payments Portpin ltd has loaned to the club and money paid to Portpin Ltd or Chainrai by Friday, March 12
.
"

I think it's common ground that, in the absence of their own bank account, PCFC were "transacting" via their client account at Fuglers at the time in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted
Phil,

 

And then we factor in what laughing boy said in his resignation letter...

 

What was it? Something about not being allowed to attend company meetings or something?

 

 

Unless someone has worked in a large Multi-National then the concept of Corporate Compliance is totally misunderstood.

 

The cast of characters down the road have track records that make you wonder. As for this part of the world. well the best example I can give is one of the largest local banks CLOSING it's Corporate Compliance & Audit division 3 months after Lehman...... They didn't need Compliance so no wonder SBT didn't understand what he needed to do.

 

Compliance isn't just a dig at allegations of brown bags and Money Laundering, it is the entire ,ethodolgy of operatiing a business profgessionally - I don't see it down there (or at many other clubs) although to be fair to Rupert, the OLD SLH did run that way) BUT this is what I think IS going to kill them.

 

Professional Incompetence, nothing more or less will be the way they go down - sort of an Al Capone type scenario

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
That isn't what they said. It was David Gold that believed they weren't and he is clearly wrong based on what happened in court.

Not neccessarily. I think that, on balance, he is more likely to be right than wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...