Pompey Takeover Saga

[teamsaint]

i would assume that getting rid of the football creditors rule would be good for poopey tho..........

 

lots of parachute money to play with .

[EastleighSoulBoy]

i would assume that getting rid of the football creditors rule would be good for poopey tho..........

 

lots of parachute money to play with .

 

NO! The parachute money should then, totally, be used for a pro-rata payout to all their creditors, so they all get treated equally!

 

I do presume you were tongue in cheek?

[View From The Top]

i would assume that getting rid of the football creditors rule would be good for poopey tho..........

 

lots of parachute money to play with .

 

Umm, no. The money goes to ALL the creditors on an equal basis.

[mack rill]

TBH HMRC are right in their stance. It's not just the skates, it's the bigger picture with millions at stake in a time when all of us will be looking to save money, as well as pay more to sort the debt.

 

The schadenfreude does kick in and I really couldn't wish better than for the first real big case, after Leeds, to be that sleazy lot down the wrong end of the M27.

 

Yes you are right, But HMRC should of gone to the courts and closed the loop hole that all clubs are using before giving it large. If PFC win there appeal HMRC should pay compensation for stopping the CVA.

[hypochondriac]

Yes you are right, But HMRC should of gone to the courts and closed the loop hole that all clubs are using before giving it large. If PFC win there appeal HMRC should pay compensation for stopping the CVA.

 

Big if.

[gary r]

Yes you are right, But HMRC should of gone to the courts and closed the loop hole that all clubs are using before giving it large. If PFC win there appeal HMRC should pay compensation for stopping the CVA.

 

you are legally allowed to challange the cva so there is no way you can sue them for compensation , should of paid your taxes when they where due!!!!!

[View From The Top]

Yes you are right, But HMRC should of gone to the courts and closed the loop hole that all clubs are using before giving it large. If PFC win there appeal HMRC should pay compensation for stopping the CVA.

 

Any creditor is legally allowed to challenge the CVA within 28 days so there are no grounds for compensation.

 

Prehaps you should believe what you read on here and not the skate boards.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Yes you are right, But HMRC should of gone to the courts and closed the loop hole that all clubs are using before giving it large. If PFC win there appeal HMRC should pay compensation for stopping the CVA.

 

I believe that they did try previously? Not absolutely sure though.

 

The current economic climate isprobably the best time for them to strike when people's minds are focused?

[aintforever]

NOTW back page, Taxman's £150m War on Football

 

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/football/880548/TAXMANS-150M-WAR-ON-FOOTBALL.html

 

The Football League/FA must be well chuffed with Pompey. Hopefully they will look to make an example of the cheats, just like HRMC are.

[Gingeletiss]

Yes you are right, But HMRC should of gone to the courts and closed the loop hole that all clubs are using before giving it large. If PFC win there appeal HMRC should pay compensation for stopping the CVA.

 

 

You have to laugh, this thought is all over your own boards, but the simple fact is that they are allowed to appeal. You don't want to listen to all that AA tells you, he is another muppet like the Storrie teller, and you lot lap up their every word.

[rallyboy]

the really funny bit is if the taxman overturns the football creditor rule then all creditors get equal payouts.

If you want the golden share you need to pay 100% to everyone so the criminal 4p a year suddenly becomes £130M in cash on the table before you can kick a ball again!

 

HMRC winning that very winnable case would surely liquidate Pompey the same day.

 

But AA sails on regardless spouting rubbish, pretending there isn't a herd of elephants sat in the room with him.

There are 589 pages here explaining how serious their situation is but there are still many in the few who believe the hype and are looking forward to a return to the Prem.

 

Wakey wakey!

[trousers]

You have to laugh, this thought is all over your own boards, but the simple fact is that they are allowed to appeal. You don't want to listen to all that AA tells you, he is another muppet like the Storrie teller, and you lot lap up their every word.

 

Whilst any creditor is legally allowed to appeal, that doesn't necessarily provide them with immunity from a counter claim for 'damages' should they lose the appeal, does it?

 

Surely PFC would have the same legal right to do that, wouldn't they ?(not that they would automatically win such a claim of course)

[aintforever]

Whilst any creditor is legally allowed to appeal, that doesn't necessarily provide them with immunity from a counter claim for 'damages' should they lose the appeal, does it?

 

Surely PFC would have the same legal right to do that, wouldn't they ?(not that they would automatically win such a claim of course)

 

I don't think you can have a legal right to appeal - then be sued because you made an appeal.

[View From The Top]

I don't think you can have a legal right to appeal - then be sued because you made an appeal.

 

Correct. AA is spouting ******s again.

[mack rill]

Whilst any creditor is legally allowed to appeal, that doesn't necessarily provide them with immunity from a counter claim for 'damages' should they lose the appeal, does it?

 

Surely PFC would have the same legal right to do that, wouldn't they ?(not that they would automatically win such a claim of course)

 

Fanks Trousers, Old Mack rill might be one of the Blue few on ear! But i haven't worn my knuckles out Yet. i do know about the 28 day rule. If you appeal and win there should be some sort of comp.

 

OH! and Gingeletiss,,,,,,,i don't get it off Pompey boards, Band for not toeing party line, Must be i spend to much time being educated on ear!

[Gingeletiss]

Fanks Trousers, Old Mack rill might be one of the Blue few on ear! But i haven't worn my knuckles out Yet. i do know about the 28 day rule. If you appeal and win there should be some sort of comp.

 

OH! and Gingeletiss,,,,,,,i don't get it off Pompey boards, Band for not toeing party line, Must be i spend to much time being educated on ear!

 

Wrong, oh so wrong.

[trousers]

I don't think you can have a legal right to appeal - then be sued because you made an appeal.

 

Even if it turned out the appeal was without foundation? I know I'm playing devils advocate here because I believe there is substantial foundation on HMRC's case but what if a creditor files an appeal they know they have no hope in winning but do so 'just because they can' to inflict some tit-for-tat vengeance on the company that went into liquidation? That wouldn't be 'fair' would it?

 

Anyway, as I say, purely hypothetical in this case I would venture.

[andysstuff]

I was under the impression that HMRC had challenged the football creditors rule before and lost. Why does everyone seem so confident that they will get a more favourable result this time?

[View From The Top]

Even if it turned out the appeal was without foundation? I know I'm playing devils advocate here because I believe there is substantial foundation on HMRC's case but what if a creditor files an appeal they know they have no hope in winning but do so 'just because they can' to inflict some tit-for-tat vengeance on the company that went into liquidation? That wouldn't be 'fair' would it?

 

Anyway, as I say, purely hypothetical in this case I would venture.

 

I find it hard to believe that HMRC would find themselves open to being sued after they exercise their legal right to appeal against a CVA in an attempt to bring in revenue to the crown.

[sidthesquid]

I was under the impression that HMRC had challenged the football creditors rule before and lost. Why does everyone seem so confident that they will get a more favourable result this time?

 

Because it's one of three reasons for the appeal - the others being image rights and the fact that Handy Andy is a CHEATING skate barsteward who inflated the debt with all sorts of inappropriate & fictional borrowings to attempt to block HMRC's veto of the CVA. Number three is what will do for the Skates, it seems they are using this as a test-case for the other two.

[andysstuff]

Because it's one of three reasons for the appeal - the others being image rights and the fact that Handy Andy is a CHEATING skate barsteward who inflated the debt with all sorts of inappropriate & fictional borrowings to attempt to block HMRC's veto of the CVA. Number three is what will do for the Skates, it seems they are using this as a test-case for the other two.

 

Let's hope AA can't claim the victory by winning on 2 points out of 3 then.

[Saint_John]

I was under the impression that HMRC had challenged the football creditors rule before and lost. Why does everyone seem so confident that they will get a more favourable result this time?

 

Try read this from April this year by insolvency firm Mercer & Hole -

http://insolvency.mercerhole.co.uk/2010/04/articles/uk-insolvency/unfair-football-creditors-rule/

 

More recently in the Lehmans and Woolworths insolvencies, the courts have considered the deprivation principle ("an anti avoidance principle designed to prevent parties agreeing in advance provisions which better [a] party's position in the event of insolvency" according to the Woolworths judgement). One could imagine HMRC running an argument that the football creditors rule puts the football authorities in a better position than they would otherwise have been (namely that the participants in the football authorities' league competitions, and their associates, are protected financially when a club becomes insolvent).

 

and

 

Many commentators (from CRITique via The Lawyer and accountingweb to The Daily Mail and The Telegraph) are now questioning whether the football creditors rule can survive, especially as its abolition has been proposed by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Football and questioned in parliament.

[tony13579]

I was under the impression that HMRC had challenged the football creditors rule before and lost. Why does everyone seem so confident that they will get a more favourable result this time?

 

The football creditors ruling found football to be a linked family of businesses. That court ruled in thier favor on the grounds that to let one fail might cause the lot to fail so thier trade should be paid first.

 

Many would find that a odd ruling. If it was aplied to builders no building firm could be allowed to fail. Almost every firm that ends up going into admin could claim a family of fellow traders who should be paid first.

 

I think it is unsound. It is wrong to pay millionaire football clubs and players and agents before builders, schools and charities.

How would you like it if your holliday firm went bust but paid hotels and airlines first and only left the holliday makers the crumbs? You would get firms designing thier business around this model.

Going bust frequently. You would be too scared to book a holliday.

[andysstuff]

Thanks guys. I think we all agree that the football creditors rule is fundamentally flawed, goes against natural justice and should be legislated against.

 

BUT that's the thing - with a case already lost, any silk worth his salt is just going to cite existing case law. Without primary legislation to overturn current case law, I can't see that HMRC has a lot of hope of winning on this point.

 

The image rights arguement may be a winner, as may AA inflating the debts - which he's got previous for - which takes the skates over the 25% necessary to block the CVA.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

the really funny bit is if the taxman overturns the football creditor rule then all creditors get equal payouts.

If you want the golden share you need to pay 100% to everyone so the criminal 4p a year suddenly becomes £130M in cash on the table before you can kick a ball again!

 

HMRC winning that very winnable case would surely liquidate Pompey the same day.

 

But AA sails on regardless spouting rubbish, pretending there isn't a herd of elephants sat in the room with him.

There are 589 pages here explaining how serious their situation is but there are still many in the few who believe the hype and are looking forward to a return to the Prem.

 

Wakey wakey!

 

Just trying to be even handed here. I believe a C.V.A. would not work that way.

 

My rather simplistic view of what would happen is, the sums would have to be done again. All the debts would be added up, each creditor would then have their percentage of that total debt worked out. That percentage, for each creditor, would be applied to the moneys held or due to the business, to get the sum which would be paid to each creditor. This is how Pro-rata works. So the football creditors will find their payout (currently 100%) will drop drastically while other businesses, currently due 20% (not of the total debt but their own) over the length of the C.V.A., will find their payments actually increase.

 

Example. A club owes £100 Million spread among it's creditors.

 

It can only, during the life of the C.V.A., realise some £50 million.

 

One club is owed £6 million, 6% of the total debt. Today they would get £6 million (forgetting other football debts for this example). After a change their £6 million (6%) would become £3million (6% of the debtor clubs £50 million).

 

Mr Bun The local baker is owed £1 million, 1% of the total debt. Today he would get 20% (of his own debt, which is what the Skates propose) £200,000. After a change Mr Bun's 1% would change to £500,000 (1% of the debtor club's £50 million).

 

All rather simplistic and from experience of helping someone through an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (I.V.A.) where the principles are, I believe, the same?

[Saint_John]

Thanks guys. I think we all agree that the football creditors rule is fundamentally flawed, goes against natural justice and should be legislated against.

 

BUT that's the thing - with a case already lost, any silk worth his salt is just going to cite existing case law. Without primary legislation to overturn current case law, I can't see that HMRC has a lot of hope of winning on this point.

 

The image rights arguement may be a winner, as may AA inflating the debts - which he's got previous for - which takes the skates over the 25% necessary to block the CVA.

 

Read the link above again, it says

The problem was that it was not the company but the buyer of the business who paid the football creditors. The courts found, perhaps surprisingly, that the amount paid by the buyer to the company was not reduced by the amount the buyer paid to the football creditors. In effect, payment to the football creditors was an entirely separate issue from the insolvency and distribution of the company's assets.

 

1/ Comical Andy is taking the money from the Company, it is NOT new money from the buyer.

 

2/ The judgement in the Woolworths and Lehman cases were given down by HIGHER JUDGES and MORE RECENTLY. They may well get the same judges when they return to Court.

As it says in the blog

...the courts have considered the deprivation principle ("an anti avoidance principle designed to prevent parties agreeing in advance provisions which better [a] party's position in the event of insolvency" according to the Woolworths judgement).

[andysstuff]

Read the link above again, it says

 

 

1/ Comical Andy is taking the money from the Company, it is NOT new money from the buyer.

 

2/ The judgement in the Woolworths and Lehman cases were given down by HIGHER JUDGES and MORE RECENTLY. They may well get the same judges when they return to Court.

As it says in the blog

 

I stand corrected.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Even if it turned out the appeal was without foundation? I know I'm playing devils advocate here because I believe there is substantial foundation on HMRC's case but what if a creditor files an appeal they know they have no hope in winning but do so 'just because they can' to inflict some tit-for-tat vengeance on the company that went into liquidation? That wouldn't be 'fair' would it?

 

Anyway, as I say, purely hypothetical in this case I would venture.

 

Which is exactly why AA is using the term 'Vexatious' when he talks about HMRCs appeal. He deems it to be for annoyance and interference this explains. Truthfully? It's interfering in his quest to get the best deal for his client when, any plausible Administrator, would be working for the best possible deal for the creditors. AA has form for manoeuvering debts to suit and this was noted, in court, during a previous legal process.

[rallyboy]

I get that principle ESB, but at the moment if clubs want to continue playing they must pay the football creditors in full.

 

Any overturning of the FC rule would mean they have to pay everyone in equal measure - so all creditors in full.

 

If that rule is overturned the football authorities might have to change rules and start allowing clubs to shaft each other and carry on regardless, owning players they haven't paid for, playing them against their former clubs who have been ripped off - and I can't see that happening.

So a change in the football creditor rule could set the entire debt in stone.

 

They can always pay 20p in the pound to all, they just won't be allowed to play professional football in the uk.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

I get that principle ESB, but at the moment if clubs want to continue playing they must pay the football creditors in full.

 

Any overturning of the FC rule would mean they have to pay everyone in equal measure - so all creditors in full.

 

If that rule is overturned the football authorities might have to change rules and start allowing clubs to shaft each other and carry on regardless, owning players they haven't paid for, playing them against their former clubs who have been ripped off - and I can't see that happening.

So a change in the football creditor rule could set the entire debt in stone.

 

They can always pay 20p in the pound to all, they just won't be allowed to play professional football in the uk.

 

I agree, I was just putting my view out there and hoping people would correct it or support it. Sorry if I appeared critical of your point.

 

As you say, the whole thing is a Pandora's Box and may well be viewed that way by the Judiciary which might leave them to a Laissez F'aire decision and fail the appeal for HMRC.

[benjii]

Even if it turned out the appeal was without foundation? I know I'm playing devils advocate here because I believe there is substantial foundation on HMRC's case but what if a creditor files an appeal they know they have no hope in winning but do so 'just because they can' to inflict some tit-for-tat vengeance on the company that went into liquidation? That wouldn't be 'fair' would it?

 

Anyway, as I say, purely hypothetical in this case I would venture.

 

If you instigate court proceedings that are totally without merit you will get punished heavily with costs orders against you.

 

The only way PFC could sue HMRC for damages would be if HMRC's actions were in bad faith. For example, if there was material evidence which HMRC knew and which meant it had no case or if it mislead the court etc... That will not happen and even if you could establish the grounds for a counterclaim in this instance the damages would still have to pass the legal tests for damages (remoteness, causation etc...). Talk of compensation can be added to the list of "pieces of BS" that have come from down that way.

 

As to the football creditors rule and HMRC winning - dunno. But they are also appealing with regards to the way the CVA voting was conducted and I would suggest they are pretty confident on that front. Handy Admin Andy also has "previous" here, lest we forget.

[mcjwills]

I get that principle ESB, but at the moment if clubs want to continue playing they must pay the football creditors in full.

 

Any overturning of the FC rule would mean they have to pay everyone in equal measure - so all creditors in full.

 

If that rule is overturned the football authorities might have to change rules and start allowing clubs to shaft each other and carry on regardless, owning players they haven't paid for, playing them against their former clubs who have been ripped off - and I can't see that happening.

So a change in the football creditor rule could set the entire debt in stone.

 

They can always pay 20p in the pound to all, they just won't be allowed to play professional football in the uk.

 

No clubs that look dodgy will be forced to pay all transfer fees up front

[andysstuff]

No clubs that look dodgy will be forced to pay all transfer fees up front

 

Think it'll go further than that, especially when you look at which clubs may actually fall foul of this. Here and abroad. I would guess it would lead to all clubs having to pay all transfer fees upfront.

 

And, to be honest, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[Dark Munster]

Yes you are right, But HMRC should of gone to the courts and closed the loop hole that all clubs are using before giving it large. If PFC win there appeal HMRC should pay compensation for stopping the CVA.

 

PMSL

 

Cheats FC propse to pay HMRC 4p in the pound for 5 years (and that measly amount being dependent on selling crap players for a total of £15m, and also is 20% on a lesser amount than HMRC's claim). Meanwhile Cheats FC trouser £48m worth of parachute money, paying back BC and Mirage 100% of their "debts", and of course those clowns keep the land and other assets. And after all that, Cheats FC expect compensation if HMRC's appeal fails??

 

:lol::lol:

Edited 18 July, 2010 by Dark Munster

[Dark Munster]

NOTW back page, Taxman's £150m War on Football

 

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/football/880548/TAXMANS-150M-WAR-ON-FOOTBALL.html

 

Comment by "jimbob". Nice one.

 

Dont forget that Portsmouth/football has paid players and agents before charities, taxes, local bussinesses , schools where they trained, etc. yet they are trying to fleece us the tax payer whilst wanting to use most of the parachute payments to cheat thier way back to the prem and beat other clubs that pay thier training costs, pay thier taxes and pay local bussinesses. Por old pluckey Pompey.... no.... cheats

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Yes you are right, But HMRC should of gone to the courts and closed the loop hole that all clubs are using before giving it large. If PFC win there appeal HMRC should pay compensation for stopping the CVA.

 

lol lol lol, you think that Pompey fans are deluded and then another one comes along to take the delusion even further. Perhaps you could offset any compensation against amounts already owed?

[Jimmy_D]

Probably I've just missed it... but I don't remember seeing it reported anywhere besides AA's words (or him being quoted) that HMRC's debt was increased due to tax owed on image rights. HMRC in their statement said they didn't see any reason why their voting rights had been reduced, which would suggest that it's not due to image rights tax, but due to what they already owed plus fines for non-payment and having no intention to pay, image rights isn't actually owed (yet).

[mack rill]

lol lol lol, you think that Pompey fans are deluded and then another one comes along to take the delusion even further. Perhaps you could offset any compensation against amounts already owed?

 

Cracking idea!,,,,,,,,should we set that at say 20p in the £ Think i will go fishing tomorrow.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Cracking idea!,,,,,,,,should we set that at say 20p in the £ Think i will go fishing tomorrow.

 

Haven't you got crabs already?

[hutch]

No clubs that look dodgy will be forced to pay all transfer fees up front

Yep. If the football creditors rule was scrapped, football creditors would be reduced at a stroke to the odd share of gate takings from an away game, and maybe a couple of weeks wages, instead of gazillions in add-ons for installment payments, appearances and sell-ons.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Yep. If the football creditors rule was scrapped, football creditors would be reduced at a stroke to the odd share of gate takings from an away game, and maybe a couple of weeks wages, instead of gazillions in add-ons for installment payments, appearances and sell-ons.

 

I wonder how many footballers would suddenly decide that they would be better off 'working for a living'? That comment doesn't apply to most of them but certainly does to most of that rabble which spent a few, boring, weeks in S. Africa. Jamo being one of the exceptions by my reckoning. He's still a skate though!

[Gingeletiss]

Probably I've just missed it... but I don't remember seeing it reported anywhere besides AA's words (or him being quoted) that HMRC's debt was increased due to tax owed on image rights. HMRC in their statement said they didn't see any reason why their voting rights had been reduced, which would suggest that it's not due to image rights tax, but due to what they already owed plus fines for non-payment and having no intention to pay, image rights isn't actually owed (yet).

 

You haven't missed it, I've been saying this for a while now. The ONLY source that claims it's for image rights, are voices from Poopey. Many on here have said it was a 100% fine levied on them for non-payment.

[HK_Phoey]

You haven't missed it, I've been saying this for a while now. The ONLY source that claims it's for image rights, are voices from Poopey. Many on here have said it was a 100% fine levied on them for non-payment.

 

I thought I saw something where AA was claiming that of the original 17m owed to the taxman, 12m was for PAYE and VAT with 5m being for image rights, HRMC then doubled this as a fine for non payment as it their right. However, AA said he would only recognise the 24m i.e double 12m. What I don't understand is why there is even a debate about this, as UK resident these footballs have to pay income tax on world wide earnings surely.

[angelman]

Not sure HMRC have levied any fines.

[hutch]

With news of Chainrai in London today for "talks", I had a vision of an entirely unrelated meeting taking place in London between 2 unconnected people:

 

Mr.Chunderup

So, Mr.Astrological, I remember 3 months ago you promised me that you could sell some of my assets for £15 million, and that the money was as good as in the bank. 3 months later, you've got me, how much is it again, about £400k?

Mr.Astrological

Yes, I'm sorry, MrChunderup. It appears we were let down by the poor advice from one of our Consultants. But don't worry yet, I've had a couple of phone calls, and I'm expecting an e-mail any day now to confirm that the rest is in the bank. Honest.

Mr.Chunderup

I hope so, Mr.Astrological, because what you raised so far only paid the wage bill for nearly a week. Remind me again, Mr.Astrological, how much cash do you need every week just to keep my company going?

Mr.Astrological

About £500k.

Mr.Chunderup

Now Mr.Astrological, about the VAT scam ...

Mr.Astrological

CVA, Mr.Chunderup, its a CVA. And it's not a scam. Honest...

Mr.Chunderup

Whatever. I remember that you told me you were confident that the bogeyman would agree to it ...

Mr.Astrological

...Well I thought he would ...

Mr.Chunderup

...Then you told me after he objected that you were confident that he wouldn't appeal...

Mr.Astrological

...Well I thought he wouldn't ...

Mr.Chunderup

...And now that he has appealed you tell me that you're confident that his appeal will fail.

Mr.Astrological

That's right. I'm very, very confident that his appeal will fail.

Mr.Chunderup

Mr.Astrological, I fear that my confidence in you was as misplaced as yours has been.

Mr.Astrological

I absolutely assure you that it wasn't, Mr.Chunderup

Mr.Chunderup

Time is running out, Mr.Astrological. Very, very quickly.

[sidthesquid]

Worth a read...

 

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/433646539?-11205

[aintforever]

Worth a read...

 

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/433646539?-11205

 

I wonder if this is actually true....

 

"Image rights and VAT reclaiming from fees paid to agents are the main areas of interest.

 

In the case against Pompey the taxman is claiming £13,293,651.72 for just this type of evasion.

 

Stupidly it seems that the almost unknown players involved in this are players like Tal Ben Haim,John Utaka and Lauren.

 

For the same period of time it is estimated that Manchester United, which is one of the biggest clubs in the world, would have a bill worth approximately £5.3 million.

 

United can probably claim that the £760,000 they pay Wayne Rooney every six month is worth the expence. But how do Pompey justify £1.7 million that they are supposedly still owing Sol Cambell."

 

Surely if the numbers don't add up re:Image rights then it is a simple case of tax evasion.

[saintjay77]

I wonder if this is actually true....

 

"Image rights and VAT reclaiming from fees paid to agents are the main areas of interest.

 

In the case against Pompey the taxman is claiming £13,293,651.72 for just this type of evasion.

 

Stupidly it seems that the almost unknown players involved in this are players like Tal Ben Haim,John Utaka and Lauren.

 

For the same period of time it is estimated that Manchester United, which is one of the biggest clubs in the world, would have a bill worth approximately £5.3 million.

 

United can probably claim that the £760,000 they pay Wayne Rooney every six month is worth the expence. But how do Pompey justify £1.7 million that they are supposedly still owing Sol Cambell."

 

Surely if the numbers don't add up re:Image rights then it is a simple case of tax evasion.

 

On the flip side,

 

If they are the current rules then surly its down to what the 2 parties can negotiate and agree on? Just because Poopy are stupid enough to agree over inflated demands doesnt make what they did as wrong???

 

HMRC need to prove that this practice is wrong and to get the loop hole either closed or moderated to make sure that they can tax where ever possible. Not sure they will string Poopy up over this one but they might use Poopy as an example of how the current law leaves a route for tax evasion and in turn may be able to change the law to stop it.

 

If they can prove aa has fiddled the figures to suit then that could really be bad news for the blue few as I guess the alternatives are to start the whole process off again with new administrators (doubt the funds would add up to allow that) or for aa to hit the liquadise button and be done with it?

[hutch]

On the flip side,

 

If they are the current rules then surly its down to what the 2 parties can negotiate and agree on? Just because Poopy are stupid enough to agree over inflated demands doesnt make what they did as wrong???

 

HMRC need to prove that this practice is wrong and to get the loop hole either closed or moderated to make sure that they can tax where ever possible. Not sure they will string Poopy up over this one but they might use Poopy as an example of how the current law leaves a route for tax evasion and in turn may be able to change the law to stop it.

 

If they can prove aa has fiddled the figures to suit then that could really be bad news for the blue few as I guess the alternatives are to start the whole process off again with new administrators (doubt the funds would add up to allow that) or for aa to hit the liquadise button and be done with it?

I think, for the purpose of the present appeal, the intricacies of what is or isn't reasonable for foreign image rights is secondary. If HMRC issued an assessment before the vote, then that was the debt until it had been properly resolved in the proper place at the proper time. Not by the Chairman unilaterally discounting the debt. The taxman operates a "pay now argue later" policy.

 

They should have been allowed to vote.

[Gemmel]

What Transfer embargo???????????

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/The-number39s-not-up-for.6426689.jp

 

Well they can't be accused of trying to hide it!

Very brazen to come out and publically explain how they are about to continue their two finger waving at the authorities.

They will actually build a half decent team. I just hope somebody reminded android of how they ended up in this mess in the first place.