Trader Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 They did vote against Palarse's CVA, but didn't appeal presumably because the CVA was properly prepared and they didn't think they'd win. In contrast to that other CVA down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 Did they not agree to Palace's offer of 1 or 2p in the pound ? No theyvoted against, but didn't have 25% of the debt, so couldn't block it. They could have appealed, but seems things were done properly at palace, so they had no grounds to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 I've just recalled Ho's post about us having egg on our faces regarding the Chinese takeover, lol when you think about it there have been some classic posts. The tide is now turning a bit faster it seems, and the egg may well be in my face in the next few weeks after my stance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 BBC reporting that the appeal could take a day or day & a half - well that would be another day gone before the start of the season even if Pompey did win (unlikely I know) http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8839169.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
for_heaven's_Saint Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 Just had a look back at this for a laugh http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/2674911/Just-who-are-you-then.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 and read the first comment, brilliant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 Remember people, the CVA being approved doesn't lift the embargo. That only happens once a new owner is in place and the FL are happy with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merovingian Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 I don't know what you guys are fretting about - we will deffo start the season with only 20 players - the embargo won't be lifted in time IMHO and in any case there is no way we will win the appeal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 BBC reporting that the appeal could take a day or day & a half - well that would be another day gone before the start of the season even if Pompey did win (unlikely I know) http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8839169.stm Don't know why they concentrate on the image rights as if it were the only thing that HMRC was appealing against. It may be a murkier area that pompey might be able to get away with but there are several other parts to their appeal, such as the way the meeting was run and the failure to circulate the changes to the CVA, where HMRC are on much firmer ground as I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 Just had a look back at this for a laugh http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/2674911/Just-who-are-you-then.html Got to love the 4th comment People who are truly successful and truly rich and who have class, do not want or need to be 'known' or recognised. Al Fahim, on the other hand, has no liquid assets and very little class and yet his ugly mug was, and still is, seen everywhere. Yep we know, we've got Markus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 (edited) Don't know why they concentrate on the image rights as if it were the only thing that HMRC was appealing against. It may be a murkier area that pompey might be able to get away with but there are several other parts to their appeal, such as the way the meeting was run and the failure to circulate the changes to the CVA, where HMRC are on much firmer ground as I see it. I guess we're all used to poor reporting by journalists who don't understand and can't be bothered to understand the issues involved. But, I get the feeling they will all be swatting up on insolvency law next week when the full ramifications of what might happen start to to take hold. Journalists - god, some of them make the blue few on the snooze pages look quick by comparison. Edited 27 July, 2010 by Gorgiesaint Too many letters & not enough letters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 (edited) VFTT said: Remember people, the CVA being approved doesn't lift the embargo. That only happens once a new owner is in place and the FL are happy with them. Fapp? Do they have one lined up? Edited 27 July, 2010 by EastleighSoulBoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draino76 Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 I thought the padders would be out by now! ??! Edit: sombody else take the 30,000 would ya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 FAP, maybe. The jury's still out on the last P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 Missed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draino76 Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 Heres to next 30000! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 Heres to next 30000! I think 20,000 is a better target, both 50,000 posts and 1000 pages. But then again, if HMRC win the court case we may have to wrap this thread up well before then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 Good to see hutch getting the honour of the 30,000th post, as he's made some excellent contributions over the year and more of this thread. We now expect a fulsome acceptance post, containing deep and heartfelt thanks to all those who made it possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 old Nick is out in front with 1053 posts on this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 old Nick is out in front with 1053 posts on this thread But we should recognise quality rather than quantity surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 old Nick is out in front with 1053 posts on this thread most of them bemoaning the possibility that the blue phew will get away with it all. Thankfully as each day passes, that looks increasingly unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 Good post in the news from kski in London PCFC to not have to enter or exit CVA by the start of the season – they have 12 months from entering the CVA. The points deduction is determined by the exit vehicle (agreed or extraordinary CVA) not by the timescale. The CVAs being challenged at the High Court. The High Courts decision can be taken to the Court of Appeal by either side. The court can imply terms on the CVA, or direct AA to form a new CVA. HMRC are looking for guidance on voting issues. AA by law has to act in the interests of all creditors (HMRC included), and HMRC contest he has disadvantaged them by reducing their claim. Interestingly the actual tax liability will only be known when the CVA is agreed and the Admin Event occurs. The HMRC have a special team called Combined voluntary arrangement service – so one would imagine they are accurate to 10%? The Inclusion of “secured” debt football creditors is a legal minefield covering liens, securities and trusts, and other issues. But it seems odd that creditor A who will receive 100% under FC rules gets to vote on a proposal affecting creditor B who will receive 20% over 4 years. Re Image rights – The HMRC are not choosing to contest the concept of Image rights in this case. They are claiming that the 26% of wages diverted to IR payments for PCFC players in the last three years does not match the accrued Income generated by Image rights for PCFC. (A tax dodge) Bearing in mind this year Man U have set aside £5.5m on IR tax provisions. In fy 09 PCFC paid £17m in IR, generating a tax liability at 40% of £6.8M. HMRC will argue that PCFC turnover does not match Man U and the IR payments for the squads cannot be said to be worth similar amounts. I think they have a good point that is difficult to defend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 Well it's taken over a year and with a few false dawns along the way, we are now at business end of things. In one week today, andriod will either be the toast of pompey or the fat lady will be having her after show party. Of course though, it probably isn't as simple as all of that, but as the money runs out and the new season looms large, something will have to give and it ultimatley it's down to two sets of lawyers; pompey Vs HMRC. Pull up a chair, grab a beer, it's going to be fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 But we should recognise quality rather than quantity surely? That would go to Clapham and Hutch. Clapham is very quiet these days. I hope he didn't get into trouble for sharing his industrys view of aa and uhy hacker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 I think the ultimate accolade, and thanks should go to Fitzhugh Fella for starting it all. Ably supported by a cast of many 'character actors' from stage right (as you look at a map of the M27). Plus, of course, a whole shoal of extras, led by Corp Ho and FMPR with their humourous take on things. Press quotes include: "More interesting than Fiddler On The Roof" Portsmouth News "Eclipses the Poseidon Adventure" Shelley Winters "More realistic than Raising The Titanic" Clive Cussler "If I Had A Rich Man" Andrew Andronikou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 In one week today, andriod will either be the toast of pompey or the fat lady will be having her after show party. I've got 50,000 VIP tickets for anyone interested... hopefully Peter Storrie, Steve Cotterill and the Android will do a bit of stand up before the fat lady gives one last hearty wail..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 radio solent interview with AA about court case and AA's understanding of image rights.... its the players fault demaning tax free wages http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8859292.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 as you are a female leftie married to a Skate i don't think you would know the difference, and anyway there must be a good one in those somewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 That would go to Clapham and Hutch. Clapham is very quiet these days. I hope he didn't get into trouble for sharing his industrys view of aa and uhy hacker I agree with that, although there are a host of others who have added to the saga on here, and of course it is not over as yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landford.saint Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 Regardless of the outcome of the Appeal, PCFC need money to keep trading. Does anyone know how much? Where it is coming from? And how long can they last at the current rate? I realise that BC is funding this to some extent but surely there has to be a point where liquidating the club is the only option left. I know this has probably been discussed before, but has anyone any ballpark figures on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 (edited) radio solent interview with AA about court case and AA's understanding of image rights.... its the players fault demaning tax free wages http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8859292.stm Can believe the transcript of that coming up in court. He calculates that their liability might be £5m but he refused to include all the image rights in the CVA. Also think he needed to be firmer on why he excluded that part as the rules, as I understand them, say that unless he was categorically sure he could exclude them he had to include them and then appeal, not the other way round. Edited 27 July, 2010 by pedg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 I don't know what you guys are fretting about - we will deffo start the season with only 20 players - the embargo won't be lifted in time IMHO and in any case there is no way we will win the appeal I think you mistake fretting with enjoying...we, 30 odd thousand posts & 600 pages down the line, are still loving the comedy, the false hope, the appalling results, the greedy players & officials, the wonderful array of class-lacking morons attaching themselves to the cast, the pure schadenfreude of it all. We've even learnt to love the HMRC! And there's still the Saggy & Storrie Show to come:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 Regardless of the outcome of the Appeal, PCFC need money to keep trading. Does anyone know how much? Where it is coming from? And how long can they last at the current rate? I realise that BC is funding this to some extent but surely there has to be a point where liquidating the club is the only option left. I know this has probably been discussed before, but has anyone any ballpark figures on this. Since Hutch pointed out the shortfalls in revenue, I have started to believe that without warning they may be liquidated.IMO the moment AA feels he may take a hit he will pull the rug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 And there's still the Saggy & Storrie Show to come:D Don't forget Mandaric's day in court! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 (edited) http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8859292.stm Is he really that clueless that he can't see that Pompey has image rights payments over twice that of Man Utd or any other clubs. How can Pompey player's image rights be more than Rooney, Ferdinand etc? It was blatantly done so they could save money and offer players higher wages supplemented by image rights. Thus build a squad for the Premier League and win the FA Cup that they couldn't otherwise attract on what their wage budget should have been. Edited 27 July, 2010 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 Is he really that clueless that he can't see that Pompey has image rights payments over twice that of Man Utd or any other clubs. How can Pompey player's image right be more than Rooney, Ferdinand etc? It was blatantly done so they could save money and offer players higher wages supplemented by image rights. Thus build a squad for the Premier League and win the FA Cup that they couldn't otherwise attract on what their wage budget should have been. also on those image rights if they had been paid normally there are NI payments etc due on the total Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 as you are a female leftie married to a Skate i don't think you would know the difference, and anyway there must be a good one in those somewhere What on earth are you blathering on about Nick? Difference between what? ( I assume you've aimed the above at me - can't think of anyone else fitting the 'description'). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 AA's now confusing me, I had to listen to his comments twice to make sure. I thought the image rights issue was quite simple - that Pompey paid a proportion of wages as a tax-free bonus under the guise of image rights, yet he is banging on about players claiming these amounts because a certain proportion of their income is earned abroad as they are so famous (?) and can thus be paid into offshore accounts bypassing UK taxation - he is saying that their work for Portsmouth is partly international. When did it become an international issue? Employed by a UK company to work in the UK - but with wages paid into offshore accounts tax free? And that's before you start looking at those accounts and seeing where it goes after that. Imagine the situation - 'you want £40K a week, tell you what, we'll give you £70K a week and you move £20K into this other account....' But that's another issue still to be dealt with...... I also think his figures are up the spout, a back of the envelope guess at three seasons of image rights payments at 10-15% of the wages comes out much closer to HMRC's estimate of £13M than his of £5M. He's a muddled boy, if he were my witness I wouldn't let him near a courtroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 radio solent interview with AA about court case and AA's understanding of image rights.... its the players fault demaning tax free wages http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8859292.stm May be its me, but he doesnt sound confident. If HMRC use his description of what players consitute Image rights, word for word, then he's in trouble. The stuff aboout owing them 5 million and not 13 is equally baffalling - that extra 5 million would take them over the 25%..... unless I just completely misunderstood what he said. I really think he is a liability and his brief would do well to advise him...."Say nothing" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 AA's now confusing me, I had to listen to his comments twice to make sure. I thought the image rights issue was quite simple - that Pompey paid a proportion of wages as a tax-free bonus under the guise of image rights, yet he is banging on about players claiming these amounts because a certain proportion of their income is earned abroad as they are so famous (?) and can thus be paid into offshore accounts bypassing UK taxation - he is saying that their work for Portsmouth is partly international. When did it become an international issue? I would assume this is on the basis that the Premier League is a global brand which markets itself worldwide and has the majority of its consumers abroad. It's an angle I hadn't considered before, and worryingly, he may actually have a point... one hell of a can of worms, that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 AA's now confusing me, I had to listen to his comments twice to make sure. I thought the image rights issue was quite simple - that Pompey paid a proportion of wages as a tax-free bonus under the guise of image rights, yet he is banging on about players claiming these amounts because a certain proportion of their income is earned abroad as they are so famous (?) and can thus be paid into offshore accounts bypassing UK taxation - he is saying that their work for Portsmouth is partly international. When did it become an international issue? Employed by a UK company to work in the UK - but with wages paid into offshore accounts tax free? And that's before you start looking at those accounts and seeing where it goes after that. Imagine the situation - 'you want £40K a week, tell you what, we'll give you £70K a week and you move £20K into this other account....' But that's another issue still to be dealt with...... I also think his figures are up the spout, a back of the envelope guess at three seasons of image rights payments at 10-15% of the wages comes out much closer to HMRC's estimate of £13M than his of £5M. He's a muddled boy, if he were my witness I wouldn't let him near a courtroom. To be fair it did sound like he was talking on his mobile whilst running away so he was probably distracted.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 AA's now confusing me, I had to listen to his comments twice to make sure. I thought the image rights issue was quite simple - that Pompey paid a proportion of wages as a tax-free bonus under the guise of image rights, yet he is banging on about players claiming these amounts because a certain proportion of their income is earned abroad as they are so famous (?) and can thus be paid into offshore accounts bypassing UK taxation - he is saying that their work for Portsmouth is partly international. When did it become an international issue? Employed by a UK company to work in the UK - but with wages paid into offshore accounts tax free? And that's before you start looking at those accounts and seeing where it goes after that. Imagine the situation - 'you want £40K a week, tell you what, we'll give you £70K a week and you move £20K into this other account....' But that's another issue still to be dealt with...... I also think his figures are up the spout, a back of the envelope guess at three seasons of image rights payments at 10-15% of the wages comes out much closer to HMRC's estimate of £13M than his of £5M. He's a muddled boy, if he were my witness I wouldn't let him near a courtroom.Agree. I had an expert witness once who produced a brilliant report going against the thoughts of one of the best paraplegic experts in the country. Got him in conference and straight away his answers to questions were muddled. We dropped him and agreed the other sides evidence on that point. Never let a muddler near a court room Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 I would assume this is on the basis that the Premier League is a global brand which markets itself worldwide and has the majority of its consumers abroad. It's an angle I hadn't considered before, and worryingly, he may actually have a point... one hell of a can of worms, that one The Pl will take this on, as they know it potentially will cost them a fortune. I think though the players that are on this scam could hardly be seen as world stars and if he tries to compare Ronaldo etc with the Pompey players he will do well to win that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 (edited) I would assume this is on the basis that the Premier League is a global brand which markets itself worldwide and has the majority of its consumers abroad. It's an angle I hadn't considered before, and worryingly, he may actually have a point... one hell of a can of worms, that one But why does the same not apply for every other Premier League club? Why is Pompey's fee twice that of Man Utd's? I wonder which is larger, Pompey's merchandise revenue or Pompey's image rights fees? AA will find it hard to explain away if it is the latter. Edited 27 July, 2010 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 I wonder which is larger, Pompey's merchandise revenue or Pompey's image rights fees? I will take a wild guess at the latter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 I would assume this is on the basis that the Premier League is a global brand which markets itself worldwide and has the majority of its consumers abroad. It's an angle I hadn't considered before, and worryingly, he may actually have a point... one hell of a can of worms, that one But thier advertisers are british and they cant sell that many shirts abroad? They get thier TV money from a british company... Sky... Where is the millions of overseas income coming from??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 I would assume this is on the basis that the Premier League is a global brand which markets itself worldwide and has the majority of its consumers abroad. It's an angle I hadn't considered before, and worryingly, he may actually have a point... one hell of a can of worms, that one But if you consider the reasons that Usain Bolt pulled out of the London GP meeting - it would mean that potentially he could discount a proprtion of the income from games played overseas (ie UEFA cup away games) - well in 3 seasons that amounts to 3 games against 38 league games per season & 2 seasons where they got to the cup final (6 games). Assuming they got knocked out in the first round of the league cup & no replays, they would have played a minimum 133 matches in this country. On that basis, AA can discount 2.25% (3/133) of the image rights as being earned overseas (IMO). That is nothing in the grand scheme of things and certainly shouldn't provide a get out clause for AA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint 76er Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 Since Hutch pointed out the shortfalls in revenue, I have started to believe that without warning they may be liquidated.IMO the moment AA feels he may take a hit he will pull the rug. But won't that ruin that comb-over thing he has and make it go all wonky on his head... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 But thier advertisers are british and they cant sell that many shirts abroad? They get thier TV money from a british company... Sky... Where is the millions of overseas income coming from??? i assume that it will be seen by the law as no different as trying to open a Swiss account without telling the authorities. It is to my mind tax avoidance. it will be interesting if HR and PS have image rights paid into foreign accounts as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 27 July, 2010 Share Posted 27 July, 2010 I'm no tax expert but just because you may have earned money/wages/profit abroad it doesn't follow that you aren't taxed in the UK on that income. If you are a UK tax payer you pay UK tax on all of your world-wide earnings, only if you have already been taxed abroad will you be able to claim some tax relief but that is an entirely different issue. Even if you argue that as a footballer playing in a league with an international brand that some of your earnings are earnt abroad (an argument that is unlikely to hold much water in this instance anyway) you would still have to pay UK tax on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts