Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Tony Husband on BBC South Today just said that someone from HMRC during the meeting asked in front of everyone why their debt was reduced in voting rights AA refused to comment. Very strange not to do so if he has a valid reason that he is comfortable about. Why not just say in front of everyone at the meeting?

Link to post
Share on other sites

in the current economic climate i think the Revenue must pursue this debt, cut backs are being announced every day and a football club owes the the country money, all future Sky Money should be allocated to creditors not used to run a business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I said the same a while ago.Terry the builder (a pompey fan) was owed something like 50k. That included his profit for the work (not sure of the vat). Therefore the cost to him personally was low ,especially after he can put it against his tax. He was never going to bring the club down, but perhaps use the story to get more business due to his hard luck story ,without hurting his club

 

Understand that Terry the builder is putting up a substantial extension to Storrie-Tellers pad at Hayling Island

 

I suppose he can set off the loss at PFC against the revenue from this deal!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Andronikou negotiated an increase in their debt to £24m with them. There must be a deal behind it. HMRC still voted against as they have a policy to do but they got more money than before.

 

I think Andronikou has done a deal with them that they won't appeal and drag it out.

 

There you go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I see.

 

The noises coming from HMRC suggest different but then I wouldn't trust the HMRC as far as I could throw them. In fact, it's pretty galling having to cheer them on in this instance. It's only cos it's Pompey.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of the skates reckon HMRC have cut a deal with AA and thus will not be challenging. Can't see it myself but I would be livid if true.

 

If they have done a deal why have they said today they are "considering their position"?

 

If a deal had been done it would be over today and there would be nothing to consider. Thus no deal.

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe how depressed I am about the CVA being accepted. I mean, it's only ****ing Pompey, a crappy little football club, and yet I'm sitting here, moping around like the world's going to end. I really need to get a grip. I got called bitter at work, and got frustrated because nobody else can see why they're cheats. I'm sure HMRC will appeal, and there's more fun to be had, but right now, they are laughing, and it's getting to me more than it should!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't believe how depressed I am about the CVA being accepted. I mean, it's only ****ing Pompey, a crappy little football club, and yet I'm sitting here, moping around like the world's going to end. I really need to get a grip. I got called bitter at work, and got frustrated because nobody else can see why they're cheats. I'm sure HMRC will appeal, and there's more fun to be had, but right now, they are laughing, and it's getting to me more than it should!

 

Feck'em, I say.

Cheats never prosper & karma gets you in the end (I hope.....)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Husband on BBC South Today just said that someone from HMRC during the meeting asked in front of everyone why their debt was reduced in voting rights AA refused to comment. Very strange not to do so if he has a valid reason that he is comfortable about. Why not just say in front of everyone at the meeting?

 

Dear Constant Reader

This may be the most interesting and important post of the thread so far.

Pick up a couple of cases of beer and some nice Vino, go find some take-away menus and sit back and enjoy what will clearly come next if Tony has his report correct

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Constant Reader

This may be the most interesting and important post of the thread so far.

Pick up a couple of cases of beer and some nice Vino, go find some take-away menus and sit back and enjoy what will clearly come next if Tony has his report correct

 

Someone more cynical than me would probably say, "Yeah, yeah. We've heard all that before."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically it's like this.

 

Unless you're a Saints fan, most 'neutrals' (at the moment at least) don't know enough about the Skate situation in order to care.

Now then, if HMRC take it back to court, it's going to get a whole lot more coverage.

The skate fans will, ultimately believe what they're told - regardless of what they say.

 

Think of how long it took before they protested....

 

It ain't over yet, and I (4-1) as they seem to love quoting, can't wait.

 

Whatever happens next, their day in the sun has clouded over, and it's about to p1ss down. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

HMRC have not cut a deal - I cannot see it. I am sure they will challenge it. They are attacking football on a number of fronts, storrie and rednapp, suing the EPL, challenging the football creditor rule and going after pompey. They will continue until something sticks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What sort of deal? It would be illegal to ultimately pay HMRC more, pro rata, than the other unsecured creditors.

 

Sounds like bullsh*t to me.

 

 

replace 'HMRC' with 'football creditors' and it suddenly becomes legal???

 

Hence why HMRC could win that part of their argument as well.

Edited by St Chalet
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still amazed so many creditors accepted it when:

 

a/. Someone provides proof that a better deal is possible, and

 

b/. AA said himself that if it was rejected, he'd have to come back with a better offer.

 

You've got the taxman on your side - surely it's worth a punt to reject, and sees what happens? I guess it's easier for me to talk, as my livelihood's not affected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget that it's not extra debt as such, but fines of 100 percent levied for non payment of tax, with the harshness caused by non intention to pay and actively avoiding payment.

 

So would it then be feasible for anyone doing business with poopey to have had it in the terms of the deal that a 100% penalty is levied for non payment in, say, 3 months? Or is this a fine the HMRC can apply only when in admin? The only benefit would be to double the size of the debt here, but a debt of a quarter of a billion would sound pretty impressive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NIckH I didnt expect you to rise to the bait. Im glad you are a saint fan but at times it seemed you were masquerading as a skate fan with some of your pro skate comments

I believe this story has a few more sequels to run. but you do seem to have an air of smugness where by I told you so.

 

PS does anybody know if AA paid those charities the money that was promised to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget that it's not extra debt as such, but fines of 100 percent levied for non payment of tax, with the harshness caused by non intention to pay and actively avoiding payment.

 

At what date were the fines effective? Was it, or could it have been, before the date of administration?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The good thing is though even if they do escape the tax man then Chanrai will just milk them for the parachutes and leave them floundering anyway. This is someone who watched them get relegated and put them in admin, he obviously doesn't give a monkeys about PFC, he just wants as much cash out of them as he can get.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The good thing is though even if they do escape the tax man then Chanrai will just milk them for the parachutes and leave them floundering anyway. This is someone who watched them get relegated and put them in admin, he obviously doesn't give a monkeys about PFC, he just wants as much cash out of them as he can get.

 

He'll have a long wait if he doesn't sell the club. The payments of parachute money goto football creditors until they are paid off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Slater from the BBC has updated his blog, is the first line a nod to this thread?

 

To the disappointment of Southampton fans, Treasury officials and rival insolvency firms hoping to get the liquidation gig, cash-strapped Portsmouth have taken a big step towards financial stability.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2010/06/a_good_day_for_pompey_fans.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt Slater from the BBC has updated his blog, is the first line a nod to this thread?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2010/06/a_good_day_for_pompey_fans.html

 

I think it is. Having said that, he fully expects HMRC to challenge the CVA in court which means more deductions I think. Personally, I couldn't give a **** anymore as we clearly have better prospects and will be above them in 3 seasons at most, but I'll be amused if they start on -20 or whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Husband on BBC South Today just said that someone from HMRC during the meeting asked in front of everyone why their debt was reduced in voting rights AA refused to comment. Very strange not to do so if he has a valid reason that he is comfortable about. Why not just say in front of everyone at the meeting?

 

That's awful if true. But does fit with his previous comments when caught out (dismissing the judges comments as boll*cks etc).

 

I really hope his licencing body end up looking at his conduct in this. It's bad enough that some IPs even try to do this sort of thing once, let alone be blatantly caught out again and again.

 

I'm still sure that HMRC will challenge within the 28 days and toast will still result, but more than stopping P*mpey "getting away with it" I really really want AA to get shafted for his actions. :poundit:

Link to post
Share on other sites
So would it then be feasible for anyone doing business with poopey to have had it in the terms of the deal that a 100% penalty is levied for non payment in, say, 3 months? Or is this a fine the HMRC can apply only when in admin? The only benefit would be to double the size of the debt here, but a debt of a quarter of a billion would sound pretty impressive.

 

HMRC can fine any company 100% of the balance owed if (as Jimmy says) there is intention to avoid payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The good thing is though even if they do escape the tax man then Chanrai will just milk them for the parachutes and leave them floundering anyway. This is someone who watched them get relegated and put them in admin, he obviously doesn't give a monkeys about PFC, he just wants as much cash out of them as he can get.

 

Yes, but we're worried he'll buy another bunch of mercenaries to get them promoted at the first attempt. True, he'll be after the PL Sky money, but as a by-product the CHEATING BASTARDS could re-establish themselves in the PL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm still amazed so many creditors accepted it when:

 

a/. Someone provides proof that a better deal is possible, and

 

b/. AA said himself that if it was rejected, he'd have to come back with a better offer.

 

You've got the taxman on your side - surely it's worth a punt to reject, and sees what happens? I guess it's easier for me to talk, as my livelihood's not affected.

 

I'm amazed too. But don't forget, a huge part of the unsecured debt is either to football creditors (who'll get back 100% anyway), and Gayboy who'll get back (even at 20p in the pound) a lot more than he is really owed (allegedly). And God knows what other backroom deals have been made by AA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's awful if true. But does fit with his previous comments when caught out (dismissing the judges comments as boll*cks etc).

 

I really hope his licencing body end up looking at his conduct in this. It's bad enough that some IPs even try to do this sort of thing once, let alone be blatantly caught out again and again.

 

I'm still sure that HMRC will challenge within the 28 days and toast will still result, but more than stopping P*mpey "getting away with it" I really really want AA to get shafted for his actions. :poundit:

 

 

Clapham Saint, could your company make an official complaint to that professional body ?

 

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Went to talk to some leading insolvency experts in Australia (where I live) about a job - and they referred to the profession as having some unscrupulous characters working in it. They mentioned the current administrator of Portsmouth as an example. I wonder if those voting returns from the creditors were subject to independent verification or whether it was just left to AA and his cronies stood by the fax machine with a bottle of tippex. Cheating bastards. HMRC will get them yet, I am pretty sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really surprised by the CVA getting through. AA was always going to either inflate the overall debt or state a reduced HMRC debt to ensure that they had under 25%.

 

Whether they get away with it will depend on whether HMRC will appeal the CVA in the courts and I can not for one minute think they will accept the decission especially as HMRC have pushed thing this far I can't see them just giving up.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if HMRC had wanted this CVA to be approved as this will give them their day in court they've been so desperate to have with a Football Club.

 

No doubt we will not hear a thing from them until 1 hour before teh deadline for appeal ends.

 

I still think there is a whole world of **** to fall upon our fishy neighbours

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else find this absolutaly disgusting?

However, Andrew Andronikou admitted he was surprised at the actions of Hart.

 

He said: 'We only had a handful of creditors, three or four, that voted against it.

 

'With Paul Hart, I have no idea his reasons, we just had a rejection. Thankfully it hasn't damaged the club.

 

'I am very surprised because they (Hart and Kutner) are very much involved with football and you would have thought would have been supporting the club and making sure it survived.

 

'By their rejection, you can only infer they would rather the club went into liquidation.

From: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Hart-rejected-CVA-proposals.6370300.jp

 

Perhaps, Mr Andronikou, they weren't happy with being shafted by your pathetic CVA?

Link to post
Share on other sites
HMRC have not cut a deal - I cannot see it. I am sure they will challenge it. They are attacking football on a number of fronts, storrie and rednapp, suing the EPL, challenging the football creditor rule and going after pompey. They will continue until something sticks.

 

I'm with this opinion, there's a whole lot going on behind the scenes and occasionally front stage, like HMRC's question at the meeting. The fat lady hasn't sung yet and we're nowhere near the final curtain. It's more like one of those cliff-hanger series, "Pompey have their CVA, but what will happen next. See next week's thrilling episode..."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt Slater from the BBC has updated his blog, is the first line a nod to this thread?

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2010/06/a_good_day_for_pompey_fans.html

 

Then Slater goes on to say that HMRC could still appeal the CVA, that they will challenge the Football Creditors ruling in Court and also that the Court ruling on Messrs Redcrapp. Storrieteller and Mandaric was also still to come.

 

So why would we be disappointed? The Android has presumably massaged the figures unethically and could receive sanctions against him that might jeopardise his future career as an Insolvency Practitioner. It was the expectation that he would somehow pull a stroke like this to get the CVA through, so I suspect that most on here are rubbing their hands in glee and anticipation at the further fun to come.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})