Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well funny, I come on here to mock the idiots and find out it's you lot saying it all, I can't tell the real thickos from the fake ones. You all blend in so well.

 

I tried to post from Harry Redknapp wishing them luck and to beat the tax man for him but it wasn't posted! :(

 

Not sure they appreciated a post from Maradona asking them when Steve was leaving either...

Link to post
Share on other sites

"How can the HMRC turn up and then hand over a large amount of paperwork, they've had weeks to submit this. It looks like they are trying to get the case adjourned to stitch us even more. The whole case should be thrown out and our costs paid to teach them a lession!"

 

lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
i do find it funny that the man whose been paid good money and appears to be so bent has not even bothered to turn up to court defending his own work and reputation agaisnt the hmrc, maybe he knows its a lost cause and there is no point turning up.

 

I think his absence speaks volumes. I suppose for one, as he isn't in the country he can't be asked any questions. Apart from that, as administrator he should be there, and not be leaving it to the lawyers. Who in their right mind would do this, if they were trying to ensure the club's survival and get a CVA through?

 

Me, I am still sticking to Chanirai wanting to take vacant possession of Fratton Park.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The news wrote

Pompey's case resumes after new evidence is read by the judge.

 

Chris: The judge has returned to the court room.

 

Chris: Opening the case for HMRC Ian Mitchell QC said the taxpayer was always the victim when a club went into administration.

He told the judge: 'It's always the Treasury which loses out when a football club becomes insolvent.

 

Chris: He added: 'What the football authorities have done is design a set of rules and a payment system which means that football creditors get paid and HMRC doesn't.'

 

Chris: The revenue is unhappy that football creditors are entitled to be paid in full.

 

 

Mr Mitchell added: 'That's's why the football authorities always want clubs to win a company voluntary agreement (CVA).

 

 

'Their policy is to make it impossible for anyone to challenge this rule and in every occasion it's HMRC which loses out.

 

Chris: Mr Mitchell added: 'This appeal is not about precise figures, it's about principle.'

Edited by tony13579
Link to post
Share on other sites
The news wrote
Chris: Mr Mitchell added: 'This appeal is not about precise figures, it's about principle.'

Not sure I like the look of that comment, really...

 

Surely it's exactly about precise figures, that Andronikou artificially and illegally struck out some of HMRC's voting entitlement so they could not block the CVA?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris: Mr Mitchell added: 'This appeal is not about precise figures, it's about principle.'

 

 

OOOHHH.. thats not good. thought/hoped they were appealing on the breaches of the process and massaging of the figures by Andy, not the wider principle of football creditors rule.

 

maybe we were all wrong :(

 

hopefully, thery are just showing their first ace, with another 2 hidden

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure I like the look of that comment, really...

 

Surely it's exactly about precise figures, that Andronikou artificially and illegally struck out some of HMRC's voting entitlement so they could not block the CVA?

 

That's one selective quote. Don't worry... In any case, this appeal might be nothing to do with the alleged procedural irregularities - those could be another hearing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it not make sense for HMRC to challenge the FCR rule first? Then they'll know how to proceed from there, surely. If they 'win' then the whole CVA will have to be rewritten.

 

If they 'lose', they can then raise the question about irregularities with the existing CVA.

 

I'm sure they'll raise all three issues but they have to start somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OOOHHH.. thats not good. thought/hoped they were appealing on the breaches of the process and massaging of the figures by Andy, not the wider principle of football creditors rule.

 

maybe we were all wrong :(

 

hopefully, thery are just showing their first ace, with another 2 hidden

 

That was my first reaction, but on second thoughts. The process that should be followed in regard to voting rights IS about principle. I.e. they are saying that the wrong process was followed, and are not looking to get in to argument about the amount of the debt. That actually works in favour. Similarly with football creditors rule. It is not about 100p in the £ versus 20p in the £ or anything else, it is about the principle of paying some creditors more than others based on nothing more than a private agreement (the FC rule). I think they're on course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HMRC could not have been this stupid... SURELY???? They will easily win the other two arguments - so why go all out to win the one that nobody really seems to think they have a case in? Moral issues are b*llocks in a court of LAW.

 

Is it possible HMRC believe that the money IS a lost cause and that IS what they care about? Surely not...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Mitchell said HMRC had worked out that Pompey owed the taxman £30m.

'This assessment goes back some way - to the tax year of 2006/07 - and has been a very complex investigation.

'PAYE should have been paid and has not been paid.

'What has happened is that for some years the club has entered into sham agreements under which players were being paid in repsect of image rights when in fact there was no commercial basis for it.

'It was a sham. It was a way in which the club could pay the money into a tax haven

Link to post
Share on other sites
That was my first reaction, but on second thoughts. The process that should be followed in regard to voting rights IS about principle. I.e. they are saying that the wrong process was followed, and are not looking to get in to argument about the amount of the debt. That actually works in favour. Similarly with football creditors rule. It is not about 100p in the £ versus 20p in the £ or anything else, it is about the principle of paying some creditors more than others based on nothing more than a private agreement (the FC rule). I think they're on course.

 

possibly, but they will have to cover it all in this hearing. you cannot appeal twice. (unless the judge grants leave to appeal to the higher court, but then that court will want to know why those grounds for appeal were not raised at the original appeal)

Link to post
Share on other sites

is:

Mr Mitchell said HMRC had worked out that Pompey owed the taxman £30m.

'This assessment goes back some way - to the tax year of 2006/07 - and has been a very complex investigation.

'PAYE should have been paid and has not been paid.

'What has happened is that for some years the club has entered into sham agreements under which players were being paid in repsect of image rights when in fact there was no commercial basis for it.

'It was a sham. It was a way in which the club could pay the money into a tax haven.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

The news:

13:01 Chris: Mr Mitchell said HMRC had worked out that Pompey owed the taxman £30m.

 

 

'This assessment goes back some way - to the tax year of 2006/07 - and has been a very complex investigation.

 

 

'PAYE should have been paid and has not been paid.

 

 

'What has happened is that for some years the club has entered into sham agreements under which players were being paid in repsect of image rights when in fact there was no commercial basis for it.

 

 

'It was a sham. It was a way in which the club could pay the money into a tax haven.'

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure I like the look of that comment, really...

 

Surely it's exactly about precise figures, that Andronikou artificially and illegally struck out some of HMRC's voting entitlement so they could not block the CVA?

 

The amount of tax owed on inflated image rights could be calculated different ways. My guess is that HMRC dont want to risk losing because they settle on a specific figure which can be successfully challenged, instead they want to get the general principle accepted that the image rights provision has been exploited to avoid tax. Nailing down the actual figures would be for another hearing another time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Mitchell said HMRC had worked out that Pompey owed the taxman £30m.

'This assessment goes back some way - to the tax year of 2006/07 - and has been a very complex investigation.

'PAYE should have been paid and has not been paid.

'What has happened is that for some years the club has entered into sham agreements under which players were being paid in repsect of image rights when in fact there was no commercial basis for it.

'It was a sham. It was a way in which the club could pay the money into a tax haven

 

thanks **** for that. they're starting to get to the point of it now

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})