Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
'Over the term of our administration there has been lots of speculation about creditors' claims increasing. But the only claim that has really increased has been the one from HMRC.

 

'Originally they were claiming £12m. Then it was £17m. Then £35m and now it is £37m. 'This increase is based on image rights. At the moment there is no tax legislation giving HMRC the ability to tax image rights. That speaks volumes. Other creditor claims have hovered around the same figure.'

 

And yet their debt managed to increase from £70m - Vantis's statement of affairs - to £135m when it came to CVA voting time.

 

We know that the HMRC debt doubled from £17m to £34m - which I believe was a 100% fine for deliberately avoiding the paying of taxes and mis-management of the club, a fine which is enshrined in English law and that HMRC were fully entitled to do!

 

So, of the £65m increase from the SoA to CVA time, £17m is a result of HMRC. What about the other £48m?

 

Oh, that's right, all the other debts have hovered around the same figure!

 

The guy is a loony, and I wouldn't trust him to sort out my kids' pocket money, let alone the millions of pound he's in charge of!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
But maybe selling clubs should ensure that the money is safe and if they take risks selling to dodgy clubs, then they should suffer the consequences like everyone else.

 

EXACTLY.

 

If you sell to someone on deferred payment terms you are taking a risk against their creditworthiness; it's up to you to assess that risk and decide if the risk outweighs the potential reward or not. Clubs are currently excused from conducting this basic part of business by the football creditor rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted (edited)
Surely the 28 days applies to any creditor who wishes to appeal, so even if HMRC had decided to appeal earlier nothing material could have happened until the 28 days were up in case someone else chose to appeal on similar grounds. Therefore it made bugger all difference whether HMRC appealed after 1 day or 27 days. These comments are just another example of AA talking drivel to try to cover up his inadequacy or inappropriate behaviour in the role.

 

K.

 

Indeed. And it is standard in all forms of litigation to use the time periods available to you. Unless there is some particular reason for urgency it makes sense to use the time given to prepare your case. HMRC will have other cases they are pursuing, so will their lawyers. Naturally you prioritise work in accordance with the court deadlines and in a large organisation with a big caseload this means you file papers towards the end of the period you are allowed.

 

And further - if it is "brinksmanship", so what? This is litigation. It is adversarial. You take steps calculated to give you the best chance of success and your opponent the least chance. You also delay action if there is a prospect of negotiation succeeding in the interim or if it strengthens your tactical position.

 

Just pointless bleating from AA. But don't worry, they will win easily in no time and then all their amazing loan players will join.

Edited by benjii
Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Cotterill-Latest-blow-won39t-get.6423565.jp

 

"Andrew will be working very hard right now to bring in new players"

 

 

......... err sorry Steve, he's not, he's in Greece selling players

 

He seems perfect for poopy as it seems he can count as well as the people that have been running the club,

 

"We know how important it is to have that embargo lifted ASAP with us having only six players."

 

That must also be the reason they didnt do too well in the 1st game in the states. Only fielding half a team is going to have its draw backs. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suewhistle

suewhistle

Posted
Posted

That SAlaw article is interesting on many counts, this one for example:

 

"HMRC may seek to claim that as (100%) beneficiaries of the Football Creditors Rule they are claiming a lien over the Club (especially the TV money). If that’s the case then the insolvency regime defines a “lien” as a form of security. i.e. secured borrowers.

 

Secured creditors should not be voting alongside unsecured creditors under a CVA. Oooops! "

 

Plus the last line of the article referring also to the football creditors rule:

 

"How many of the current incumbents of the Premiership would be considered a credit risk if both challenges were to be made (and succeed)?"

 

Discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cincy USA

Cincy USA

Posted
Posted

Oh the irony in this comment on the "Pompey Upbeat" news story from Southstand Johnny

 

It doesn't look good: and any hope we thought we might have had of playing championship footy on a level playing field with the other 23 clubs has long since gone.

 

So when your team were playing downhill - via repetitive cheating - it was OK, but now you're complaining at having to play uphill?! Hypocritical ***

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
That SAlaw article is interesting on many counts, this one for example:

 

"HMRC may seek to claim that as (100%) beneficiaries of the Football Creditors Rule they are claiming a lien over the Club (especially the TV money). If that’s the case then the insolvency regime defines a “lien” as a form of security. i.e. secured borrowers.

 

Secured creditors should not be voting alongside unsecured creditors under a CVA. Oooops! "

 

Plus the last line of the article referring also to the football creditors rule:

 

"How many of the current incumbents of the Premiership would be considered a credit risk if both challenges were to be made (and succeed)?"

 

Discuss.

 

I think most people will agree that it is silly that football creditors who are currently guaranteed to get their money back should be included in those who can vote on how much everyone else will get via the CVA. If HMRC can argue that one successfully pompey really are up the spout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
Suprised no one has responded to this. It suggests that it could be taken to the courts within the next couple of weeks. He also thinks the HMRC will lose.

Because it is only journalism. Read the link to the SA Law article posted about the same time if you want to know the situation.

 

And, despite what it says in the "News" aticle, I don't see any way in the world that Andy will try to get this to Court quickly. It is potentially the knock-out punch. He will need as much time as Chainrai is prepared to give him to come up with an alternative way out before risking HMRC in Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
Because it is only journalism. Read the link to the SA Law article posted about the same time if you want to know the situation.

 

And, despite what it says in the "News" aticle, I don't see any way in the world that Andy will try to get this to Court quickly. It is potentially the knock-out punch. He will need as much time as Chainrai is prepared to give him to come up with an alternative way out before risking HMRC in Court.

 

depending on what payment structure Android is on, he might be more than happy with a further delay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crab Lungs

Crab Lungs

Posted
Posted
"The situation remains confusing for administrator Andrew Andronikou, who is adamant he has discovered the promise of an extension was nothing more than a verbal agreement."

 

I remember being taught at school that a verbal agreement was, legally, just as binding as a written contract, from what I recall of o'level economics. Obviously the former is more difficult to substantiate than the latter but purely in terms of law it's binding. I'm not sure where the burden of proof lies, but the fact that AA has admitted the verbal agreement existed he may well have shot himself in the foot (for once)

 

However binding it is I'm not sure though it appears to me that Pompey have reneged on a megabucks contract and now Kanu (rightfully) is pursuing it... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

the business is terminally damaged, the fans want answers - so the players are being paid to go on an all expenses holiday in the states, AA is charging for an all expenses holiday in Greece, can we assume Storrie is being paid to be somewhere else?

 

It's the gravy-train-crash that just keeps on giving!

 

Why would a single fan give them money at the moment?

As Blackadder once said, I would rather entrust my genitals to a madman with a pair of scissors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
Can someone explain how they only managed to lose 2-1 in the states given they don't appear to have any goalkeepers?!

 

On their website that shows a moth-eaten squad, the other button is for the ladies (haha) team. That seems to be a full team. Can't they play some of them? Most look more butch than the blokes team. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
View From The Top

View From The Top

Posted
Posted
EXACTLY.

 

If you sell to someone on deferred payment terms you are taking a risk against their creditworthiness; it's up to you to assess that risk and decide if the risk outweighs the potential reward or not. Clubs are currently excused from conducting this basic part of business by the football creditor rule.

 

That is a really good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EastleighSoulBoy

EastleighSoulBoy

Posted
Posted
On their website that shows a moth-eaten squad, the other button is for the ladies (haha) team. That seems to be a full team. Can't they play some of them? Most look more butch than the blokes team. ;)

 

A little known urban myth, which I can't help believing:

 

The average female skate has more tattoos and body hair than the average Southampton guy.

 

Allegedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
Am I the only one who thinks that's not a bad side to put out in the Championship (obviously lacking depth and a keeper, but as a first XI).

 

Mokoena is **** and wants out, Hreidersson is crocked, Ben Haim has agreed to join West Ham, Wilson is supposedly wanted by several clubs, Diop has gone to AEK, Mullins has been touted around by his agent, Boateng will leave for certain, Utaka's wages are beyond them, Webber is crocked, Ritchie did nothing in League 1. Doesn't leave much does it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
Mokoena is **** and wants out, Hreidersson is crocked, Ben Haim has agreed to join West Ham, Wilson is supposedly wanted by several clubs, Diop has gone to AEK, Mullins has been touted around by his agent, Boateng will leave for certain, Utaka's wages are beyond them, Webber is crocked, Ritchie did nothing in League 1. Doesn't leave much does it?

 

They've still got the bestest fans in the whole world who will cheer them on to victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
West End Saint

West End Saint

Posted
Posted

They are in the poo playerwise there best players will be sold to get them off the wage bill and that leaves them with not a lot kids and a few loans that FL might let them have.

 

As we found out to our cost the Championship is a very unforgiving league you need a team of battle harden pro's that have been there & done it at that level & they havent got that & I cant see where they will get them or if they will be allowed.

 

They also been used to losing a lot of games it will take a change of faces and a lot of hardwork to try and change that I can see them struggling next season and getting relegated again with or without a points deduction. A nice 17 point deduction would be the icing on the cake for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

they can take the entire squad, liquidate them, convict some of tax evasion and bar others from being directors ever again....

 

but they will never break their spirit!

 

One out of five isn't bad......... that's 4-1.

 

4-1?....Mmm, rings a bell, oh yeah,

 

one billionaire : four crooks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gorgiesaint

Gorgiesaint

Posted
Posted (edited)

Handy Andy was on Talksport... Brief synopsis of what he said...

 

He's in Cyprus - funny thought AEK were in Greece

HMRC not happy with football creditors rule.

Ongoing saga is putting off buyers

Said can keep the club in admin for a number of seasons without penalty!! (er don't think so)

Danny Kelly questioned re Sonko - we've been releasing expensive players gives opportunity to bring in up to 6 new players

Season ticket sales extremely good (fans are the main asset)

Will be in court on Monday, wants appeal held before the end of July

Confirmed "combination of the Gaydemak's" is the largest creditor (interesting choice of phrase)

HMRC should go with the majority decision

FL & PL now putting regulations in place around budgets to avoid over-spending

Confirmed sponsors paid for USA tour (except insurance)

Finished with "we'll have closure in the next 2 weeks I'm sure"

Edited by Gorgiesaint
Updated
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Katalinic

Katalinic

Posted
Posted

http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Portsmouth-Football-Club-Statement-1135.aspx

 

Rough translation - "The game is up and we are now seeking to put as much blame on the HMRC as possible - how dare they contest what they are actually due. Basically we are f@@@ed so we need to get to court as soon as possible or we won't be able to go out and spend £8k a week on players".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gorgiesaint

Gorgiesaint

Posted
Posted (edited)

See my original post above - I've updated it with a brief synopsis

 

For me - the strangest thing was his use of the phrase that a 'combination of the Gaydemaks' were the largest creditors - just a shame Danny Kelly wasn't as up to speed with what has happened to ask what he meant by that - Gaydemak snr & jnr or Gaydemak & Chainrai? You would have to say the former.

Edited by Gorgiesaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Under Weststand

Under Weststand

Posted
Posted

LOL at comical Andy HMRC should just fall into line & except it as 80% (in handy Andy's world) agree with CVA. Unfortunately HMRC don't live in Andy world but the real world, where a stroke of the pen does not alter real world debts either up or down which ever way he sees fit to reach his mythical 80%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted

I assume all the debts that were included in the CVA vote have been published such that HMRC could start going through them and trying to confirm their legitimacy? Maybe the attempt to get an early date is to minimise the chance of HMRC turning something incriminating up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wightman35

wightman35

Posted
Posted

With reference to my post earlier, (29,026 on page581!) I can see why the football creditors voted the CVA, but not the really unsecured creditors unless they can set their losses against tax on other income/profits. After all 4p in the pound this year is really a joke, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
I assume all the debts that were included in the CVA vote have been published such that HMRC could start going through them and trying to confirm their legitimacy? Maybe the attempt to get an early date is to minimise the chance of HMRC turning something incriminating up?

 

HMRC have already had many weeks to do that.

 

CVA was issued over 6 weeks ago on 28th May and initial details of creditors even before that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Under Weststand

Under Weststand

Posted
Posted
I assume all the debts that were included in the CVA vote have been published such that HMRC could start going through them and trying to confirm their legitimacy? Maybe the attempt to get an early date is to minimise the chance of HMRC turning something incriminating up?

Surely now they will have to prove the level of debt, or is it only HMRC that have to prove their claim for 37-million against what AA says is only 24-million? Also will they be able to raise the SOA that indicated about 78-million debt which was produced a few months ago. To show that the level of debt has risen significantly from that period?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suewhistle

suewhistle

Posted
Posted
With reference to my post earlier, (29,026 on page581!) I can see why the football creditors voted the CVA, but not the really unsecured creditors unless they can set their losses against tax on other income/profits. After all 4p in the pound this year is really a joke, imo.

 

Um, I thought that was based on them getting £15m for players. Mwahhahhaahaa. Perhaps the creditors should look a their cash flow projections again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Islander

Islander

Posted
Posted
Handy Andy was on Talksport... Brief synopsis of what he said...

 

He's in Cyprus - funny thought AEK were in Greece

HMRC not happy with football creditors rule.

Ongoing saga is putting off buyers

Said can keep the club in admin for a number of seasons without penalty!! (er don't think so)

Danny Kelly questioned re Sonko - we've been releasing expensive players gives opportunity to bring in up to 6 new players

Season ticket sales extremely good (fans are the main asset)

Will be in court on Monday, wants appeal held before the end of July

Confirmed "combination of the Gaydemak's" is the largest creditor (interesting choice of phrase)

HMRC should go with the majority decision

FL & PL now putting regulations in place around budgets to avoid over-spending

Confirmed sponsors paid for USA tour (except insurance)

Finished with "we'll have closure in the next 2 weeks I'm sure"

 

Is that a promise AA??

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonsays

simonsays

Posted
Posted
"The situation remains confusing for administrator Andrew Andronikou, who is adamant he has discovered the promise of an extension was nothing more than a verbal agreement."

 

I remember being taught at school that a verbal agreement was, legally, just as binding as a written contract, from what I recall of o'level economics. Obviously the former is more difficult to substantiate than the latter but purely in terms of law it's binding. I'm not sure where the burden of proof lies, but the fact that AA has admitted the verbal agreement existed he may well have shot himself in the foot (for once)

 

 

A few days ago old Andy was all for the verbal agreement:

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Contract-loophole-could-benefit-Kanu.6384018.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
I know they are full of **** but its widely reported he is joining them in states - this is after appeal went in. Surely stoke would not be wasting their time if it was never likely to happen...but how??

 

If you were them and wanted to sign him would you:

 

a) Ask the FA/FL for special dispensation before contacting his club

b) Go all the way through to the end and then say to the FA/FL. "Look he's here, its all sorted we just need your rubber stamp"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pugwash

Pugwash

Posted
Posted
If you were them and wanted to sign him would you:

 

a) Ask the FA/FL for special dispensation before contacting his club

b) Go all the way through to the end and then say to the FA/FL. "Look he's here, its all sorted we just need your rubber stamp"

 

If I was a cheating, morally bankrupt chancer, then (b);

 

As I'm not a PFC executive, then (a)

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