Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

Frank's cousin

Frank's cousin

Posted
Posted
Professional bodies, registrars, judges etc not behaving in the way a group of completely unbiased mongs on an internet forum expected.

 

If you were outsiders which of those groups would you expect to be best able to appraise the situation and act appropriately?

 

This whole thread exists because you're bitter about Pompey being above you in the league and you can't take it. Add in the fact that we actullly achieved something in our time in the top flight and it just rubs salt in your wounds. It also galls you that the Pompey fans are consistently recognised by the media for their support when you might get the odd mention once a year for having decent gates in Lg 1.

 

There used to be lots of talk about Pompey buying their way into the PL and achhieving success through a sugar daddy. None of you girls seem to be opposed to that sort of success for yourselves (assuming Liebherr's support isn't starting to dry up as a few of you seem to think).

 

Our fans are universally recognised as better than yours, we reached two cup finals and won a trophy and you hate it. get over it and you'll feel better

 

I am not, as many are, a skate hater - I have pompey mates who are pasionate about their team and I respect them for that, but you have to bare in mind the following: there is a fundemental interest in what is happening because a) the schardenfreude expressed by most of the pompey fans at our financial downfall and b) whatever else happens, there is a huge difference between borrowing to win things and being able to repay those loans and borrowing to win things without the revenue to repay it...which is cheating and why the points deductions are meant as a punishment AND to discourage clubs from doing exactly what your club did.

 

In response to your points above I would say this:

 

1. True many of the posts on here criticise the professional bodies because we do not understand teh leagl complexities of it all, or the regulations re admin... but also because in many cases we are incredulous that what may be within the legal framework, seems completely at odds with what is morally right and in the spirit of sporting competition... your own view of what is 'sporting' will shape you view on this...

 

2. Difficult as each group has its own interests - there is no public interest in seeing a club go to theeh wall, but at the same time, how can a punishment fit the crime,to ensure its a real deterrent and importantly try and ensure that competition is fair, yet also allow the club to survive and rebuild having learnt its lesson?

 

3. Bitter? NO. Pompey have had reasonable success as we did, 27 years in the top flight with the smallest ground is reasonable success and we are proud of it. And we did that without borrowing to buy better players and pay silly wages... at teh same time as developing a new ground, developing a training facility which we own and major investment in an academy... something we can be proud of.

 

4. Pompey when run well under Mandrich who kept hold of the purse strings and invested his own cash (although he did take 35 mil away with him when he sold up) could also be proud of what they achieved, but remember at before his time the club with teh best fans in the world were languishing at the bottom of the second tier with an average gate of 8000... thats why we find it incredulous that your fans believe the media hype about you legendary fan status... ALL clubs see gate rise and fall with success... as you will see next season when in the CCC... had your various owners actually invested in infrastructure and dragged the club into the 21st century, and managed the finances, you would probably not have had that relative success, but been a far better proposition for a potential purchaser and also more attractive to a wider fan base - our move to SMS meant finally more fans could go regularly so it intrioduced new fans who have stayed despite the lower L1 status... sound investment afterall, even if some feel because we did not borrow heavily for players, it cost us a prem position...

 

5. Liebherr has always said the club MUST be self sustaining with the odd bit of investment from himself... yes we are lucky but most would agree we made that luck through the investmenst of the past as indicated above - there is also a big difference between the odd mil and the 80 mil + you spent on internationals to try and compete BEFORE your infrastructure was in place to support it - that stupidity is what cost you. And its that fact that so many of yor fans still refuse to acknowledge that comparing what the club did as no different from Chelsea or Man utd all in big debt to survice their players that grinds. These other clubs up until now CAN service those debts which is difference no 1. The second point is that just because they are doing iot does not make it right - its why football is such a financial mess and with many of your fans justifying your recklessness because other are reckless too just illustrates their ignorance.

 

If Saints go down that route in future, I will be complaining to the club - as I do NOT want to win anything by incurring huge debts.

 

6. 'our fans are universally recognised as better than yours' - Uhm... my daddy's bigger than yours... FFS that a bit pathetic... who gives a flying feck - see notes above about your 8000 gate , but gates, noise, travelling fan numbers is effected by a lot...Success, form, local economy and catchment area... before you stake your claim on this one, best wait and see how you do in the winter next season when you are struggling lower table...

 

Two cup finals and a trophy? sure I am jealous, same as I am of thsoe that compete for the top honors and champions league places -but I also view these clubs with some distaste, because of the way they have thrown money at it to achieve that success and have spoilt the spirit of the competition - Give any club £250mil to spend and watch them go - it has nothing to do with history, size, fans ... just greed and money. If that floats your boat good for you... personnally, whatever most saints fans think of our past leader Mr Lowe, he got one thing spot on... invest wisely in infrastructure that improves facilities for customers, makes the club more attractive to players, dont pay stupid wages and avoid debt where possible - which is something we are seeing from Liebherr - it will mean we take longer to progress, may one day get promoted, and possibly relegated again - but we will have achieved what we achieve by growth on solid foundations, not a quick splash of cash that has seen you tumble like a house of cards... all depends on what your fans really want. a club with a solid infrastructure that competes well and has cyclic success or more of what you have seen - a trophy that will be forever tainted by what it cost the club to achieve it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted

Let's face it, without this thread, the only place anybody on the planet will be able to read anything about the Skates would be in The News.

 

After all, now they've dropped out the PL they have already ceased to exist as far the global media are concerned.

 

Oblivion has already happened, they just don't notice

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted

quote: thick Skate in The News:

Pompeywot,

07/06/2010 10:24:57

whilst AA is getting lots of free publicity for his company, from what I have read most of this criticism of AA mostly comes from people who don't understand what his role is. Lampitt was not selected without the input of prospective new owners; if ge was high praise to AA indeed.

I think AA has probably manipulated the debt sums to minimize HMRC's percentage influence; now the revenue seems to have dropped it's image rights claim against Pompey and it doesn't comprise 25% of unsecured debts and therefore can't stop a CVA. HMRC now seeks recovery from the PL instead. It also seems that the holding company will be dissolved allowing HMRC to pursue any evasion case. If that means they leave Pompey, Lampitt and AA to get out of this mess then well played

 

This just about sums up how out of touch your average (or below average) Skate really is regarding current affairs affecting their poxy little club.

 

Most on here are perfectly clear what the role of an administrator is, (or at least a proper professional and ethical one), having had recent experience of one ourselves. So we know that it is the Android's responsibility to administer the affairs of the club as the de facto chief executive to minimise outgoings until a buyer is found and to get the best deal possible for the creditors.

 

It is not his job to appoint a manager or a chief executive until such times as a buyer has been found, as that buyer would naturally have his own views as to whom he would like in those positions. I laughed out loud at another article in The News where the Android stated that he was appointing Limpitt because he was seen to be totally honest and whiter than white. So far more honest and with greater integrity and morality than you, Android!

 

It is not Android's place to tell all and sundry that saleable assets like players cannot be sold below some fantasy inflated figure. Neither is he particularly to be concerned to as what is in the club's best interests above those of the creditors.

 

If he has attempted to inflate the amounts owed by the creditors and the football debt in an effort to minimise the percentage held by one creditor (HMRC) so that they cannot block the CVA, then surely that is illegal.

 

It seems not to have filtered through the collective consciousness of Skates like this one, that the HMRC are going to challenge the priority given to footballing creditors and that if they succeed, then footballers, their agents and clubs owed money by the Skates will have to take their place alongside the ordinary creditors. Under those circumstances, as has already been pointed out by several posters sharper and more switched on than the Skates posters, there will be a real disincentive for unsecured creditors to vote for the CVA if they would gain a much higher payout if the courts found in favour of the HMRC's legal challenge.

 

So it is a bit premature saying well played to the Android. Naturally, we over here hope that HMRC has played a blinder, letting the Android have enough rope to hang himself. They need to make an example of the Skates to deter other clubs going down the same route. They also need to teach the Administrators and Insolvency practitioners that they will not allow them to play games to lessen the influence of the taxman acting on behalf of all right-minded citizens who deplore priority being given to mega-rich footballers over small local traders, schools and charities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidthesquid

sidthesquid

Posted
Posted

Why does everything down the road seem to imply that a 'new' owner, aka Chainrai, is in place and pulling all the strings. It is quite bizarre, really. Handy Andy seems to carry on merrily, planning pre-season, installing CEOs and managers, turning down bids as 'derisory' for players like they have not a care in the world. I still wonder if we are not missing something.

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Pompey-close-in-on-new.6344512.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
Why does everything down the road seem to imply that a 'new' owner, aka Chainrai, is in place and pulling all the strings. It is quite bizarre, really. Handy Andy seems to carry on merrily, planning pre-season, installing CEOs and managers, turning down bids as 'derisory' for players like they have not a care in the world. I still wonder if we are not missing something.

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Pompey-close-in-on-new.6344512.jp

Who can tell in the surreal world of professional football finance, particularly when allied to the shady world that insolvency practitioners inhabit (with absolutely no disrespect to any posters on here)?

 

However, I am personally expecting some news around Wednesday following the FL AGM. I cannot see how the FL can give the Newcastle/West Brom/Blackpool share to Portsmouth in the current circumstances. I could see it where the League could guarantee that they would pay off all the outstanding football debt themselves by deducting it from Pompey's parachute payments. But surely now, after receiving HMRC's writ, they cannot be certain of that.

 

I have a feeling that the League might decide to hold the share "in trust" on Pompey's behalf, with a list of conditions to be fulfilled before the share is handed over to Pompey, and maybe a list of sanctions which will be imposed if the conditions are not met. After all, we do know that the Football League have an Insolvency Policy, and have regularly used it in the past to penalise other clubs. We just don't know what that policy is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

just when I thought AA had gone quiet he reminds me of what a great comedy double act he and the prossie-botherer were.

 

Other than interviewing potential managers, advising international players on football ideas, racking up fees working on a pointless european appeal, ignoring obvious criminality, failing to address debt or creditor's concerns, upping the wage bill, underestimating the taxman, allowing the debt to balloon, creating a fantasy CVA plan and signing autographs - has AA thought about doing some actual........well, I don't know how to put it really........shall we call it, administrating?

 

 

The circus is still in town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tony13579

tony13579

Posted
Posted

http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2264288/hmrc-set-veto-cva

Breaking news: HMRC to veto Portsmouth CVA

 

HMRC source says the body doesn't regard 20p in the pound "as an acceptable return to the taxpayer"

 

 

Written by David Jetuah and Rachael Singh

 

Accountancy Age, 07 Jun 2010

The taxman is set to reject Portsmouth Football Club's plans to save itself from collapse, as it regards the troubled club's offer of 20p in the pound return to creditors as too low.

 

"[Portsmouth Football Club] have offered 20p in the pound to creditors, which we don't regard as an acceptable return to the taxpayer," an HMRC source told Accountancy Age.

 

AdvertisementPortsmouth is hoping to hammer out a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA), giving the South Coast outfit the ability to carry on as a football club - with a creditor meeting scheduled for next week.

 

The club needs 75% or more of creditors to vote in favour of the CVA for it to be approved.

 

Because of the amount of money owed to the taxman, the agency holds 25% of the vote.

 

"We are determined to achieve a decent return to the taxpayer," the source added.

 

HMRC had previously changed the first draft of a CVA as it wanted the proposal to include a liquidation in order to investigate antecedent activities.

 

Accountancy Age revealed earlier this month that HMRC filed a writ against the Premier League over its controversial "football creditors rule".

 

The FCR essentially means all football creditors, including players and managers will be paid in administrations, with the money usually deducted from payments received through TV rights

 

Wooo Hoo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted

Because of the amount of money owed to the taxman, the agency holds 25% of the vote.

Is that 25% after rounded up or down? Would be a bit more than a tad suspicious if HMRC ended up with 24.99%?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
The fact they have 25% means the 75% will vote for it. It's written in sods law.

 

What are the mechanics of the vote again? Do they need 75% of the total to vote for it or 75% of those that bother to vote? Is there a default position for those that don't vote? are they assumed to be for or against the CVA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

Surely the fact that android has massaged the figures and he could still only squeeze HMRC down to 25% is a feck-up of mammoth proportions??

 

He needed to get them down to 20% to have a chance of forcing a ridiculous offer onto the creditors that he's meant to be working for.

 

Bit late now to find some extra debt, the whole lot should be referred back to the original Vantis report.

 

Has AA made a crucial miscalculation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
angelman

angelman

Posted
Posted
Can you see every single creditor voting in favour of the CVA? I can't.

 

Agree.

 

If you are owed a lot and see the HMRC are going to vote against the CVA, you will most likely then think that your chances of getting more back are higher if you stick with HMRC. As discussed, whether it makes more sense to write off the whole lot against your tax is another question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suewhistle

suewhistle

Posted
Posted
what i would love is for everyone but hmrc to vote for the cva. They look like they will get away with it but then a southampton based business joins hmrc to tip them over the edge. Lovely stuff

 

How much are King Edwards and the Uni owed?..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted

 

sounds good to me. For a start if this is viable then it will delay them exiting admin so they still can't sign players. If this is accepted it will properly penalise them with none of this 10k wage cap rubbish. This is what should have been proposed in the first place

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperMikey

SuperMikey

Posted
Posted
Gaydamak (the previous owner) is owed £30m which is 28 per cent. I believe he will take that – why would he not?

 

Hmm, I wonder why Gaydamak would possibly refuse a 1/5 payment of his total debt of £32m...can anyone help me out here? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Saint

Weston Saint

Posted
Posted
looks like his info was spot on,hopefully its-17 for the blue few.:D

 

I never doubted it. He represents a major creditor and was on the committee that discussed the issue.

 

I spoke to him face to face today. He does not hold out much hope.

 

I asked if he thought PFC would be liquidated but his view was someone would buy it on the cheap with 17 point deduction and that with the resources at their disposal a further relegation was favourite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted

On the pompey board they are talking about striking a balance between these two proposals, satisfying creditors whilst keeping the club competitive. Erm NO! It has feck all to do with how competitive the club is. It's all about getting the creditors what they are owed and nothing else matters. It's the fundamental issue which Android and others totally fail to grasp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gorgiesaint

Gorgiesaint

Posted
Posted

Well thats the final nail in the coffin for AA's CVA. There is no chance of that going through.

 

The question is, if the creditors decide they prefer the new CVA produced by Griffins can they vote AA & UHY Hacker Young out & employ Griffins as the new administrators? If so, that would be very interesting to see what thay think when they do a final report on the administration - could this mean AA getting his come-uppance as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
solentstars

solentstars

Posted
Posted
I never doubted it. He represents a major creditor and was on the committee that discussed the issue.

 

I spoke to him face to face today. He does not hold out much hope.

 

I asked if he thought PFC would be liquidated but his view was someone would buy it on the cheap with 17 point deduction and that with the resources at their disposal a further relegation was favourite.

that's what i was hoping for but relegated to conference south would be better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...