St Marco Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 It seems AA is using the media to make hmrc look bad. Like by appealing the cva is wrong. AA from the start has run admin to make it favour one guy. If it goes to court he is going to have to show everything he has done and will have to prove the debt figures are correct. With one judge already saying he has fiddled figures before i can imagine he does not want to go to court. I imagine he is now feeling the pressure hence his remarks. The fl is different from the pl. It is not easy. If they go into the season with the players they have now they will struggle. If they lose more of them which they will then they will be as good as down. If they looklike they are down will chinman still throw money at them? Will someone still want to buy them? If hmrc appeal they are screwed simply because the appeal to buying them becomes less. I wonder if the appeal is rejected would they not come out of admin and take the points hit then just try to survive the season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 to be fair all their costs are paid for by the US teams - according to Android. Would be interested to know if Mush has gone with them to 'ave a larf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 to be fair all their costs are paid for by the US teams - according to Android. Has AA got anything right in this process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 Looks like he is struggling to sell his top players http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Topearner-BenHaim-set-to-be.6417907.jp You reap what you sow I thought Ben Haim had walked on a free due to a relegation release clause, but it appears he has decided to stay and get paid £38k each any every week until he finds a Premiership club willing to match his wage (or negotiate a deal with the skates so they pay a share). That has got to hurt. June, July and potentially August costing them near enough half a million. Ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Lindford Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 61% now 63% now... :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 Has AA got anything right in this process? from a business point of view, he is earning his own company a small fortune and a three month delay is not going to hurt one iota. A slight conflict of interest perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 I thought Ben Haim had walked on a free due to a relegation release clause, but it appears he has decided to stay and get paid £38k each any every week until he finds a Premiership club willing to match his wage (or negotiate a deal with the skates so they pay a share). That has got to hurt. June, July and potentially August costing them near enough half a million. Ouch. Or ....... they have to sell 1,000 season tickets just to earn enough to pay him to sit on the beach during the close season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 to be fair all their costs are paid for by the US teams - according to Android. And you and i both believe that...... ....do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 from a business point of view, he is earning his own company a small fortune and a three month delay is not going to hurt one iota. A slight conflict of interest perhaps? Well, we have no idea what their fee arrangement is. He might be on a highly contingent arrangement that actually ends up returning no profit at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 Andronikou added: 'There are a few players who have been around the club for a while we are looking to release. 'They earn £2,000-3,000 a week, so what is the point of having them here if they are not going to play for the club? There is no point whatsoever.' How can they expect to be allowed to sign players because their squad has gone below 20 when they are releasing players just because they dont think they are good enough!!!! Surely they should have to just put up and shut up! If they dont play and are on £2 to £3K a week and he is releasing them cause they not good enough, Who does he expect to come in on less that are any better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
100%Red&White Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 Not a pot to p1ss in and off they go to the US and Canada for a "tour" Still, they're only taking a 5aside team, right? Come on be fair, if it's OK for 'Arry's spurs, Man U and Celtic to all be over there right now it's only fair that a bankrupt, potless, Championship bunch of cheats to do the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 I see that we are building up to a major campaign of "aren't we hard done by" and I would prefer them just to liquidate rather than try and play the sympathy card. It seems that AA and BC have tried to pull a fast one and it just doesn't, at this stage, seem to be going to work. I am not sure what the FL can do if Poopey do flog all their players and they end up not being able to field a team of 11 players? Suppose that the choices are lift the embargo (and pay the players with what??) or kick them from the league. I can also see a lot of mysterious training injuries happening to make sure that they have low numbers fit. As an aside, does anyone know whether the players' wages are being paid on time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blandford saint Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 Heard Begbie Traynor put in a really high bid to handle the admin. They thought that there was a good chance that they wouldn't get paid so didn't really fancy it anyway. Hope AA suffers that fate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 I wonder if the Football League has a rule in place to prevent them selling/releasing a player that would take them below this 20 player threshold. Probably against European freedom of movement rules I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 (edited) If they dont play and are on £2 to £3K a week and he is releasing them cause they not good enough, Who does he expect to come in on less that are any better? you'd think he would be lookign for cheaper players, but in fact he wants them off the wage bill and filling the 20 slots so he can bring in better and higher paid players. That's what the 4p in the £1 a year deal allows them to do - pay significant wages in the Championship rather than creditors more money. For me thats whats wrong with this CVA agreement. It is all about the long term success of the club rather than ensuring creditors get a decent deal. Why not a £5m wage bill that sees the team just about survive in the league, and an extra few pence in the pound, rather than a £13m wage bill and the poxy 4p they are getting? Edited 14 July, 2010 by Chez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 With HRMC set to appeal the CVA, are Pompey doomed to the drop this season? 6% Not at all - the club will stay strong in the Championship 30% It's going to be a relegation dogfight but Pompey will survive 64% It's all over - League One is a certainty What hapent to AA's plan to win promotion to the prem? Even "the News " dont believe him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 Portsmouth face being under a transfer embargo until October if tax chiefs appeal against the club's Company Voluntary Agreement. Pompey administrator Andrew Andronikou fears Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs will lodge a protest against the agreement between the club's creditors before the deadline of midnight on Thursday. The move would mean the club staying in administration until the appeal is heard, and Pompey would therefore remain under the transfer embargo due to Football League rules. Andronikou told The News: "We believe the HMRC are going to appeal, that is the indication we are getting. It's going to be an irritant and, to put it simply, the embargo will stay for a longer period. "As long as there is an appeal process, the registration embargo will continue to be in force for the foreseeable future. "However, we expect any appeal hearing to be held in October or November. Before then, if the squad is below 20, we can still bring in players, regardless of the embargo. That is allowed and is something we are looking at." c h e a t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wibble Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 Seems it's not just the financial figures Andronikou likes to massage. Time for another email to Greg Clarke via njones@football-league.co.uk methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy_D Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 Seem to remember AA's CVA doesn't cater for relegation either... they're in huge trouble regardless if HMRC appeal because they won't be able to compete in the Championship. It's doubtful that they can afford that CVA as it is, even at such a low rate, and relegation would all but comfirm they can't keep up repayments. They miss one payment and the HMRC will just put in a winding up petition straight away again. Also what's good for us is bad for them... with Leeds, Norwich and Millwall getting promoted, the NPC is a more difficult league this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 I don't see how AA thinks these young overpaid hopeless cases are only be surplus to requirements now it suits. Surely they should have been first out of the door and off the wagebill when the business went into admin, or when the club so obviously breached all Prem and FA rules by trading insolvently from about October last year. If he thinks he's going to take the p-ss out of the FL by being 'clever' with the squad numbers, the goon with the frontal combover is in for a mighty big shock... Those crazy feckers at the FL will nail him to a tree, if the taxman doesn't do it first - and rightly so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 you'd think he would be lookign for cheaper players, but in fact he wants them off the wage bill and filling the 20 slots so he can bring in better and higher paid players. That's what the 4p in the £1 a year deal allows them to do - pay significant wages in the Championship rather than creditors more money. For me thats whats wrong with this CVA agreement. It is all about the long term success of the club rather than ensuring creditors get a decent deal. Why not a £5m wage bill that sees the team just about survive in the league, and an extra few pence in the pound, rather than a £13m wage bill and the poxy 4p they are getting? I agree and think the current CVA stinks. If a club is run badly it should IMO be forced to make every effort to deal with its debts before it trys to go on a march to be hugely successful again. If the 4p in the pound is accepted and Poopy get through the next 5 years relitvly unscathed, it would take the P if they were then to bring in a load of players and go on a promotion push making the owner a load of cash. If someone came in and bought the club while giving a fair payout to those owed hard earned then I doubt many would be complaining. Its just the obvious push from Chainrai to try and get the club for naff all so he can make a few quid later on. If he was stupid enough to lend the club money in the 1st place then he is as guilty as those who ran the club into the ground so why shouldnt he be part of making things right? As long as HMRC or someone does appeal then at least the crooks wont have got things all there own way. I wonder if Griffins CVA was the main one, would HMRC have accepted that or still appealed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevvy Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 I agree and think the current CVA stinks. If a club is run badly it should IMO be forced to make every effort to deal with its debts before it trys to go on a march to be hugely successful again. If the 4p in the pound is accepted and Poopy get through the next 5 years relitvly unscathed, it would take the P if they were then to bring in a load of players and go on a promotion push making the owner a load of cash. If someone came in and bought the club while giving a fair payout to those owed hard earned then I doubt many would be complaining. Its just the obvious push from Chainrai to try and get the club for naff all so he can make a few quid later on. If he was stupid enough to lend the club money in the 1st place then he is as guilty as those who ran the club into the ground so why shouldnt he be part of making things right? As long as HMRC or someone does appeal then at least the crooks wont have got things all there own way. I wonder if Griffins CVA was the main one, would HMRC have accepted that or still appealed? In my opinion they would have accepted it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 (edited) The current CVA is based on staying in the Championship or getting back to the Premier League. It is screwed if they get relegated again and even if the appeal is dismissed, HMRC will be able to make another winding up order for breach of CVA... The revenue stream reflects the recently decreased ticket prices and assumes, for the first two years, an average gate of 14,000 spectators per game. Would they get 14k in League One, if they struggle I'm not sure they will get near this figure in the Championship let alone League One with currently 8.5k season ticket holders? Finally, the Club is showing that it will retain its position in the Championship. And if they don't? 6.08 Profit and loss and cash flow projections are presented at Appendix 8. Again, these are based on being a Championship club. Edited 14 July, 2010 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 The always reliable Sun, believes the court case will be in October. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3052951/Pompey-face-tax-KO.html Looks like the Snu has their finger on the pulse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toofarnorth Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 I don't see how AA thinks these young overpaid hopeless cases are only be surplus to requirements now it suits. Surely they should have been first out of the door and off the wagebill when the business went into admin, or when the club so obviously breached all Prem and FA rules by trading insolvently from about October last year. If he thinks he's going to take the p-ss out of the FL by being 'clever' with the squad numbers, the goon with the frontal combover is in for a mighty big shock... Those crazy feckers at the FL will nail him to a tree, if the taxman doesn't do it first - and rightly so! We know as well as anyone how difficult it is to get rid of players at the moment, especially useless ones. They dont have the money to pay them off so they'll have to stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 The current CVA is based on staying in the Championship or getting back to the Premier League. It is screwed if they get relegated again and even if the appeal is dismissed, HMRC will be able to make another winding up order for breach of CVA... Would they get 14k in League One, if they struggle I'm not sure they will get near this figure in the Championship let alone League One with currently 8.5k season ticket holders? And if they don't? Again, these are based on being a Championship club. They can make the figures suit whatever situation as the griffin CVA illustrates a different perspective. I also suspect the players on the £2-3k a week salary, like the first teamers have been over paid for what they really are worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 I also suspect the players on the £2-3k a week salary, like the first teamers have been over paid for what they really are worth. Normal for Poortsmouth. I noticed quite a number of the young West Ham players with squad numbers, in the figures published a month or so, were on £500 a week. The sort of players we ended up with after administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 Regardless what HMRC do, the conditions of the CVA will never be met Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddings and Monkeys Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 Regardless what HMRC do, the conditions of the CVA will never be met What happens Stuey when they default....which they clearly will, cos they haven't a cat in hells chance of raising 15M from player sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 What happens Stuey when they default....which they clearly will, cos they haven't a cat in hells chance of raising 15M from player sales. I don't know for sure, other than they go back cap in hand and try to re-negociate. Clapham is your man for those questions. But ultimately it's all about time, coughing and spluttering to the final parachute payment. ps Did you see the Marc Jackson thread :lol::lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddings and Monkeys Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 I don't know for sure, other than they go back cap in hand and try to re-negociate. Clapham is your man for those questions. But ultimately it's all about time, coughing and spluttering to the final parachute payment. ps Did you see the Marc Jackson thread :lol::lol: Yes, what a to55er. I think (hope) that if they fail to meet their CVA obligations it's open season for creditors to petition for winding up.....I wonder if SFC or my oldschool KE VI would be interseted in that? 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 Regardless what HMRC do, the conditions of the CVA will never be met I very much doubt they will default as a substantial part of the debt does not actually exist.It is not hard to pay back 20% of zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 Regardless what HMRC do, the conditions of the CVA will never be met I believe they will. As I understand the terms of the CVA, the payments are conditional on achieving a certain level of income from player sales this year, and making profits in the future years. If those conditions are not met, there is no obligation to make the payments, so they will not be in breach of it's terms. Makes you wonder why anybody voted in favour, until you understand that around £50m of the debt is due to previous owners, and around £30m to "football creditors" who will get paid in full anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chin Strain Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 I don't see how AA thinks these young overpaid hopeless cases are only be surplus to requirements now it suits. Surely they should have been first out of the door and off the wagebill when the business went into admin, or when the club so obviously breached all Prem and FA rules by trading insolvently from about October last year. If he thinks he's going to take the p-ss out of the FL by being 'clever' with the squad numbers, the goon with the frontal combover is in for a mighty big shock... Those crazy feckers at the FL will nail him to a tree, if the taxman doesn't do it first - and rightly so! I think I'd wet myself laughing if he releases all these players, and the FL turn round and say 'you had a squad of 20 and chose to cancel contracts of several players. Tough sh it, live with it' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 It's all about levelling the playing field. Of course they've got more than 20 players on the books, but they're not good enough to win automatic promotion back to the Prem. So the rules will have to be bent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chin Strain Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 It's all about levelling the playing field. Of course they've got more than 20 players on the books, but they're not good enough to win automatic promotion back to the Prem. So the rules will have to be bent. Maybe the FL won't be mugged like the PL. Here's hoping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 Maybe the FL won't be mugged like the PL. Here's hoping. Oh I don't think that the FL will put up with AA/PFC's bull's hit. The PL had to try and shift it off their books and onto the FL's as the PL is, as we all know, the richest league in the world, with the best teams, most exciting football etc blah blah blah. The FL is a lot more realistic and actually understands that it's members have a pretty tough time of things, but they also [as we all know] don't like clubs who bend the rules. So basically the PL was happy to bend this and that so as to avoid having to confront the problem too much, but now that the FL are in charge they can do things properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 still cheating and conning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 AA can say what he likes to the FL but we all know that won't give a fat rat's arse what he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wightman35 Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 I believe they will. As I understand the terms of the CVA, the payments are conditional on achieving a certain level of income from player sales this year, and making profits in the future years. If those conditions are not met, there is no obligation to make the payments, so they will not be in breach of it's terms. Makes you wonder why anybody voted in favour, until you understand that around £50m of the debt is due to previous owners, and around £30m to "football creditors" who will get paid in full anyway. The only reason I can think of (and I apologise if this has already been discussed earlier in the thread.) is that those who thought 4p in the Pound was good enough are Poopey fanatics, or they hope to write off their losses as Tax deductable against other earnings. I don't know for sure if that is tax allowable! Somebody on here will. That would mean HMRC, (you and me effectively!) picking up the tab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 Have they appealed yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonswan Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 It's like Christmas Eve. I won't be able to sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 14 July, 2010 Share Posted 14 July, 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jul/14/portsmouth-football-league-transfer-embargo Football League rules dictate that every club must have 20 players in their first-team squad. David James is Portsmouth's only senior goalkeeper and there are 17 senior outfield players in the squad. However, there are believed to be enough young professionals at Fratton Park to reach 20. This suggests that contrary to Andronikou's expectation, the League is unlikely to relax the transfer embargo. However the journo does not appear to realise that James is no longer a Portsmouth player and can't resign for them under the embargo so not sure how much faith to put in the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Jim Posted 15 July, 2010 Share Posted 15 July, 2010 The only reason I can think of (and I apologise if this has already been discussed earlier in the thread.) is that those who thought 4p in the Pound was good enough are Poopey fanatics, or they hope to write off their losses as Tax deductable against other earnings. I don't know for sure if that is tax allowable! Somebody on here will. That would mean HMRC, (you and me effectively!) picking up the tab. Can I ask what is this 4p in the pound I keep seeing on this thread - the CVA was 20p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 15 July, 2010 Share Posted 15 July, 2010 We must be careful not to misunderstand the meaning of a transfer embargo. It isn't intended to stop a club from signing new players. Under normal circumstances a club can sign new players who they think are better than their existing players, and then get rid of their "less able" players to a lower league club. When they go bust (administration is an Act of Insolvency), they have a transfer embargo imposed. That means that they have to get rid of the "less able" players to a lower league club first, and then they can sign the new players. Same result, but you just have to do things in a different order. I've got that right, haven't I, Andy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 15 July, 2010 Share Posted 15 July, 2010 Can I ask what is this 4p in the pound I keep seeing on this thread - the CVA was 20p It's 20p over 5 years - 4p a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 15 July, 2010 Share Posted 15 July, 2010 Remember that even in these hard times you could invest your £30m in a high street building society and earn near to 4% interest. AA is barely offering the lost interest, the capital is gone! He is recieving fat parachute monies but he is going to blow that on players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andysstuff Posted 15 July, 2010 Share Posted 15 July, 2010 So it's Thursday 15th July. Today is well and truly THE day. Today we find out whether 'they have got away with it' or whether they are going to suffer the death of a thousand cuts. It's 7.30 - appeal must be in by 5.00. The next 9 hours and 30 minutes will tell one way or the other. Fingers crossed for the HMRC being able to do the right thing today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 July, 2010 Share Posted 15 July, 2010 F5 F5 F5 F5 etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 15 July, 2010 Share Posted 15 July, 2010 To put this into footballing terms... It the 91st minute of full time in the FA cup final. The score is one - nil to pompey. HMRC has a corner. Everyone is up for it including the keeper. The HMRC barrister floats one into the box. Everyone rises to meet the ball and it goes....... ......To be continued. Will the revenue get extra time or will AA go off into the distance with a big fat win bonus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts