tony13579 Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 (edited) Slow ticket sales for Blues great's big Just 2,715 tickets have so far been sold for Linvoy Primus' testimonial. That is the disappointing take-up, with the Fratton Park fixture against Premier League Fulham only three days away. ... blah .... blah... It is hoped a bumper crowd will turn out to mark the Pompey legend's 10 years of magnificent service at the club. Tickets are priced at £5 for those aged under-22, while those aged 22 and over are asked to pay £15 best fans ??? blah ...blah... Edited 28 July, 2010 by tony13579 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 Well this should be an interesting get together on the day the appeal is also due to be heard. May hear lots more come 3rd August. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8842347.stm I think we have a duty to ask questions on issues that Hutch has raised to get a complete picture, although much may change from the days proceedings, in fact if it goes completely against them, they may as well call it a wake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 http://www.bournemouth.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=206409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 AA needs to explain a lot of discrepancies in his figures. The court must be wondering if anyone has really got to the bottom of the extent of the debt yet. Thankfully the accounts that AA will file following his extensive forensic investigation will explain everything in precise detail, and we can then establish who was telling porkies. My bet would be all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 http://www.bournemouth.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=206409 Can't blame the guy for having aspirations. No doubt, after their recent experiences, they'll attempt it in a more circumspect manner than the blue phew did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 http://www.bournemouth.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=206409 didn't mean to post that link! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 this is the one I meant! http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Slow-ticket-sales-for-Blues.6442784.jp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 this is the one I meant! http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Slow-ticket-sales-for-Blues.6442784.jp That is what post 30087 is about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestSaint Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 this is the one I meant! http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Slow-ticket-sales-for-Blues.6442784.jp First Prize in the half time draw is I see a pair of Pompey Season Tickets 2nd Prize two pairs of Pompey Seasons tickets !!!!!!!!!! ? boom boom ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 (edited) http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Pompey-third-favourites-to-go.6443278.jp Pompey third favourites to go Pompey are tipped for a second consecutive relegation By Neil Allen Pompey have been made the third favourites to be relegated from the Championship. And, according to The Betting Room, Blues fans themselves are backing them for the drop. Pompey supporters have been placing stakes of up to £20 on their side to plunge straight into League One. They should put enough on to buy a saints season ticket as they head for the BSL Edited 28 July, 2010 by tony13579 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 Details here: http://www.pompeyonline.com/2010/07/details-of-the-meeting-with-david-lampitt/ Notice he does not really go into either of the points Hutch mentions, the change in the status of the football creditors between initial proposal and the meeting and that the figure AA downgraded was actually in their initial CVA document. On that 1st point, Did HMRC agree to voluntary liquidation or did they agree to aa proposing a cva with voluntary liquidation in it? I thought they just agreed for aa to propose a CVA so pushing for a compulsary liquidation now has naff all to do with anything. His comments about taking on a player for a few thousand a week being within there budget. Does that include the players like Ben Hiem, KPB and other high earners? Budget without these players would make a signing possible but surly as long as these players are still pompy players any wage budget must be blown out of the water. I dont think he made Pompys argument against the court case sound very strong in any of his responses. He might think they are confident but that may just be blind optimism. Roll on the 3rd!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 Details here: http://www.pompeyonline.com/2010/07/details-of-the-meeting-with-david-lampitt/ Notice he does not really go into either of the points Hutch mentions, the change in the status of the football creditors between initial proposal and the meeting and that the figure AA downgraded was actually in their initial CVA document. I would not be particularly reassured by that if I was a skate: - some wishy points around the court case; frankly, Lampit is not a lawyer and the person reporting it is probably not either. I doubt either of them really understood what they were talking about. - some wishy points around signing players; we all know this will be done on a case-by-case basis with each one assessed by the FL on its merits, they aren't going to be able to scam people here and they aren't going to be able to persuade everyone to let them have players for no fee and no wages. - Chanrai, fit and proper; he is doing the test on the offchance they might win their case. Great, so if they lose.... curtains? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 On that 1st point, Did HMRC agree to voluntary liquidation or did they agree to aa proposing a cva with voluntary liquidation in it? I thought they just agreed for aa to propose a CVA so pushing for a compulsary liquidation now has naff all to do with anything. His comments about taking on a player for a few thousand a week being within there budget. Does that include the players like Ben Hiem, KPB and other high earners? Budget without these players would make a signing possible but surly as long as these players are still pompy players any wage budget must be blown out of the water. I dont think he made Pompys argument against the court case sound very strong in any of his responses. He might think they are confident but that may just be blind optimism. Roll on the 3rd!!! It's complete red-herring. HMRC voted in favour of AA producing a proposal that included, as one element of it, the winding up of the company and the transfer of everything to a new company. HMRC's vote in favour of that proposal would have been predicated on then receiving their full voting rights when that proposal was put to the vote and in all other things being conducted properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 He completely glosses over anything to do with the specific facts of what actually happened procedurally in this case (understandably as you wouldn't put your case in the public domain before trial). He just makes some general points about authorities and HMRC tactics etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 It's complete red-herring. HMRC voted in favour of AA producing a proposal that included, as one element of it, the winding up of the company and the transfer of everything to a new company. HMRC's vote in favour of that proposal would have been predicated on then receiving their full voting rights when that proposal was put to the vote and in all other things being conducted properly. Exactly. There voting in favour was no more than voting in favour of the administrator producing a CVA. I was suprised that there was a vote needed at that point to be honest as surly the creditors were only waiting around for a CVA to be produced so they could vote on it. Why should they have to vote for the administrator to actually produce one in the 1st place? I cant see how the admistrator can stand up in court claiming that HMRC voted in favour of them producing a CVA so there vote should not now count cause they later voted against the actual CVA. If there arguments against the HMRC really are that week then the court case will be over my lunch time or possibly longer to allow for the judge to stop laughing at the idiot that is AA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 He completely glosses over anything to do with the specific facts of what actually happened procedurally in this case (understandably as you wouldn't put your case in the public domain before trial). He just makes some general points about authorities and HMRC tactics etc... You have to think that there is going to be a rude awaking for some of their fans who appear to be being fed the "It's all about the image rights" line by club and press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 (edited) You have to think that there is going to be a rude awaking for some of their fans who appear to be being fed the "It's all about the image rights" line by club and press. Yeah, that is certainly a key part of determing what the actual tax liability to HMRC is but there is more to the appeal than that; I doubt the judge will even attempt to answer the question; "what is the overall tax liability owed to HMRC". The judge will be primarily interested in the question as to whether the claim was handled properly; if the exact amount of the debt owed to HMRC is a material factor in determining whether the CVA has been validly passed then there will need to be a much longer hearing than a day/day and a half. Edited 28 July, 2010 by benjii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Andronikou-We-are-confident-over.6443778.jp More dodgy editing by the News. Says he is confident that he can sell pompey if the appeal goes their way which has been turned by the news into confidence about the appeal which, possibly tellingly, he did not appear to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 bearing in mind there seems to be a unanimous opinion on here that AA is about to be found out bigtime, how do we think he's going to try to get away with it? He must have a plan, there must be more to him than a comb-overed simpleton who can't add up. From everything I've seen he has made mistakes and SHOULD have the cva thrown out - but I have this nagging thought that having survived the initial day in court when it was clear that any normal business would have been wound up, well I don't like to quote the regular words of a serial poster but, will he produce something to help them 'get away with it'? Was it the protective arm of the Prem that saved them before so they are now on their own, or did AA use up all his good luck in one hit? Or is he a financial genius and he's about to make Houdini look like a pub act? The taxman had better deliver this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 bearing in mind there seems to be a unanimous opinion on here that AA is about to be found out bigtime, how do we think he's going to try to get away with it? He must have a plan, there must be more to him than a comb-overed simpleton who can't add up. From everything I've seen he has made mistakes and SHOULD have the cva thrown out - but I have this nagging thought that having survived the initial day in court when it was clear that any normal business would have been wound up, well I don't like to quote the regular words of a serial poster but, will he produce something to help them 'get away with it'? Was it the protective arm of the Prem that saved them before so they are now on their own, or did AA use up all his good luck in one hit? Or is he a financial genius and he's about to make Houdini look like a pub act? The taxman had better deliver this time. I'd say this... 'Was it the protective arm of the Prem that saved them before' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 I'd say this... 'Was it the protective arm of the Prem that saved them before' Could well be - having a member club going into administration was bad enough, but having one get liquidated would have been a huge embarrasment for the self-styled "best and richest league in the world". Of course the PL couldn't give a sh*t now they've gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 AA wasn't appointed when Pompey had their first day in Court to face the WUP. He was only appointed just before the final hearing, to effectively stave off the winding up order. He did survive a Court challenge by HMRC against the legitimacy of his appointment at the begining of March, but with a stark warning from HMRC that "they would be keeping an eye on him". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 (edited) ... Edited 29 July, 2010 by tony13579 it was irrelevent to the ongoing discussion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 It may be argued that whilst not in the recognised definition of secured creditors, football creditors are secured against the £48m parachute payments due in this case. The paperwork for this argument is the League's insolvency rules defining the status of football debt and the fact that it has been recognised in a previous court case which was lost by HMRC when previously challenging the payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 It may be argued that whilst not in the recognised definition of secured creditors, football creditors are secured against the £48m parachute payments due in this case. The paperwork for this argument is the League's insolvency rules defining the status of football debt and the fact that it has been recognised in a previous court case which was lost by HMRC when previously challenging the payments. We understand that, it's the other two points of the appeal that we expect HMRC to win. The football creditors rule can wait for another day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 It may be argued that whilst not in the recognised definition of secured creditors, football creditors are secured against the £48m parachute payments due in this case. The paperwork for this argument is the League's insolvency rules defining the status of football debt and the fact that it has been recognised in a previous court case which was lost by HMRC when previously challenging the payments. In previous cases football creditor have voted intnhe CVA and recieved their percentage as unsecured creditors. All proper because, distasteful as it may be, the new owners have separately and formt heir own funds, settled the balance inordser to obtain their Golden Share. In this case the TV monies were, IIRC, shown in the CVA document as income due to the Club, and then paid away to football creditors. This is pr9obably the first time a club in receipt of huge PL payment shas gone into Administration. I simply cannot see how the football creditors can be prefered in this way, and if they are, they they are effectively secured. Either way the CVA goes back to the drawing board IMO. If they stay in Admin, do the PL still pay them the money, or do they appropriate it to settle football debts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint si Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 Skates playing Bournemouth tonight (and winning 1-0... no doubt that'll be taken as a sign they're going to bounce straight back to the Prem). Interestingly, they've only named a 13 man squad, and Sonko is not in it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 We understand that, it's the other two points of the appeal that we expect HMRC to win. The football creditors rule can wait for another day. I think you have missed the point in what he was saying. Given HMRC have challenged and lost the football creditors rule, they have been legally deemed as secured creditors in a numer of cases (12 i think) which means they should not be voting on the CVA...... I think his point was either way HMRC win. If they are not secured creditors the CVA is void, if they are they shouldnt have voted, so it's void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 I think you have missed the point in what he was saying. Given HMRC have challenged and lost the football creditors rule, they have been legally deemed as secured creditors in a numer of cases (12 i think) which means they should not be voting on the CVA...... I think his point was either way HMRC win. If they are not secured creditors the CVA is void, if they are they shouldnt have voted, so it's void. It's all panning out quite clearly now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Keith Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 I think you have missed the point in what he was saying. Given HMRC have challenged and lost the football creditors rule, they have been legally deemed as secured creditors in a numer of cases (12 i think) which means they should not be voting on the CVA...... I think his point was either way HMRC win. If they are not secured creditors the CVA is void, if they are they shouldnt have voted, so it's void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 I think you have missed the point in what he was saying. Given HMRC have challenged and lost the football creditors rule, they have been legally deemed as secured creditors in a numer of cases (12 i think) which means they should not be voting on the CVA...... I think his point was either way HMRC win. If they are not secured creditors the CVA is void, if they are they shouldnt have voted, so it's void. Ahhhh. I get it. Sorry Derry, I misunderstood what you were saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 I notice on their megastore website they have a sale on to end sales. Items under £1! Maybe Utaka is in there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 28 July, 2010 Share Posted 28 July, 2010 http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Andronikou-We-are-confident-over.6443778.jp More dodgy editing by the News. Says he is confident that he can sell pompey if the appeal goes their way which has been turned by the news into confidence about the appeal which, possibly tellingly, he did not appear to say. Yes, he's been confident of selling them every time the **** starts to hurtle towards a fan - and yet they still keep getting chance after chance. Pull the ****1ing plug, someone, please. Pig bloody sick at their incessant "poor us" mentality and the constant bleating and whining - or the unbelievable level of stupidity - or the "heads in sand" route taken by many. 13 man squad tonight? W4nkers, absolute w4nkers. We've have previously and continue to include youngsters in our squads to make up the numbers - not pretend we've not got any. Cheating, lying bastards. Die soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsbridge Saint Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 If Pompey have permission to proceed with Sonko's registration as has been claimed in some reports, how come he warmed up with the team last night but didn't play? Is all this so they can say to the League 'Aw, go on, he's got his own shirt and car park space already etc etc.'. Cheats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/189839/Portsmouth-are-made-to-pay/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Boss-What-Sonko-Brings-1176.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 from 8 months ago.... was this the blueprint of the CVA? Blimey, how much have things moved on in the last 8 months (debt in particular!)? Almost tempting to re-do it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 when administration was started AA secured a fixed amount of money to fund the administration. Has any one tried running a spreadsheet showing the cash flow and when it runs out (ran out?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Boss-What-Sonko-Brings-1176.aspx Why do I always get the feeling we're missing something. Sonko is hardly Rio Ferdinand but he is still a relatively high-profile & high maintenance player as their first signing, and presumably Stoke aren't paying all his wages, (are they?). And they seem in no desperate hurry to shift on the likes of £40k/week Nugent. Is Chainrai still funding them? Because he must be pumping money in like there's no tomorrow at present Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 This bit of news is so exciting I actually felt compelled to put it on the main site, too. (I just hope it's not a Poopey WUM. They know how to fight dirty.) Paul Wotton lol Portsmouth by John_the_Saint (U14558047) 28 July 2010 28 Jul 2010 18:18:14 I have inside information from Portsmouth football club that we are going to sign Paul Wotton on a season long loan from our rivals Southampton with view to a permanent deal. Trust me, this is looking very likely at the moment, I work within the club which is how I know! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Why do I always get the feeling we're missing something. Sonko is hardly Rio Ferdinand but he is still a relatively high-profile & high maintenance player as their first signing, and presumably Stoke aren't paying all his wages, (are they?). And they seem in no desperate hurry to shift on the likes of £40k/week Nugent. Is Chainrai still funding them? Because he must be pumping money in like there's no tomorrow at present when you remember how long Bournemouth struggled for and how hard it was for them to get low level emergency short term loans in. Sonko on radio today saying he had other offers. Once again, something not quite right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrek Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 when you remember how long Bournemouth struggled for and how hard it was for them to get low level emergency short term loans in. Sonko on radio today saying he had other offers. Once again, something not quite right! Hmm, paperwork not gone through in time or simply propaganda from the skates? Could it actually be that the FL have told them to bugger off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Hmm, paperwork not gone through in time or simply propaganda from the skates? Could it actually be that the FL have told them to bugger off? Encouraging people to go to the next match only to then be told he can't play as they have run out of the letters K,N,S and O to put on the shirts?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Hmm, paperwork not gone through in time or simply propaganda from the skates? Could it actually be that the FL have told them to bugger off? no don't think so, if he turned down another club to be there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Not sure if this has been posted. http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2267176/football-industry-needs-give PL defending the football creditors rule (think of the poor children, sorry clubs) in front of a parliamentary committee. Does not sound like they were too convinced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Not sure if this has been posted. http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2267176/football-industry-needs-give PL defending the football creditors rule (think of the poor children, sorry clubs) in front of a parliamentary committee. Does not sound like they were too convinced. Bill Bush, director of communications and public policy at the Premier League, defended the football creditor rule (FCR) at the briefing yesterday, claiming smaller clubs would suffer if it was taken away. I fail to follow his reasoning behind that statement, unless he is trying to justify it on grounds of the trickle down of funds into the lower leagues because the Premiership gravy train benefits from the players maintaining their astronomical salary levels at the expense of us taxpayers and other unsecured creditors. And in any event, what about the counter argument? Smaller clubs suffering, or small businesses, charities and schools suffering instead as in the case of the Skates. Seems pretty clear cut as to which it should be to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 I fail to follow his reasoning behind that statement, unless he is trying to justify it on grounds of the trickle down of funds into the lower leagues because the Premiership gravy train benefits from the players maintaining their astronomical salary levels at the expense of us taxpayers and other unsecured creditors. And in any event, what about the counter argument? Smaller clubs suffering, or small businesses, charities and schools suffering instead as in the case of the Skates. Seems pretty clear cut as to which it should be to me. I guess that if the FCR was removed that the total sums for transfers would probably go down as the club selling would be more inclined to insist on the full sum up front. Some might say that this is a necessary adjustment anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/189839/Portsmouth-are-made-to-pay/ when administration was started AA secured a fixed amount of money to fund the administration. Has any one tried running a spreadsheet showing the cash flow and when it runs out (ran out?) Indeed, and it seems that the papers are now starting to cotten on that money is still flooding out through the doors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warsash saint Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/sport/8297973.Cherries__Brown_s_lucky_to_escape_ref_s_full_wrath/ He makes Savage look like a saint ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 It would be hilarious if HMRC used their past failure to overturn the football creditors preferential status to show that Pompey's football creditors are in fact secured creditors and so them voting makes the CVA invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts