Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
you guys are funny - I know your "having your day" etc but I seem to remember alot of just as silly comments from you lot when you were in a similar predicament ! ;)

 

Mero how are you feeling today, confident? The HMRC don't from the little reported seem to be that special, but we are only getting snippets

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tony13579

tony13579

Posted
Posted

12.03 the pompey submissions started, the Snews awakes

Mark: Richard Sheldon QC, representing Pompey, has just got to his feet.

 

 

He said that in March this year the other 19 clubs in the Premiership wanted the Blues kicked out of the league.

 

 

He said: 'The clubs in the Premier League wanted to boot Portsmouth out there and then in March.

 

 

'it was only due to the intervention of the head of the Premier League, Richard Scudamore, that this course of action was averted'

 

 

He said the league then offered to make an parachute payment which would have come during the 2010/11 season.

 

 

'This deal enabled Portsmouth to complete the season,' added Mr Sheldon.

 

 

'This was presented to Portsmouth very much as a fait accompli - they could take it or leave it.

 

 

'Mr Scudamore persuaded all 19 other clubs to do this.

 

 

'The other clubs wanted Pprtsmouth Football Club to go to the wall and divide all the TV and other money among themselves,' added Mr Sheldon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted

Has Mr Sheldon forgotten which side he is on? How does this help his case?

 

Richard Sheldon QC, representing Pompey, has just got to his feet.

He said that in March this year the other 19 clubs in the Premiership wanted the Blues kicked out of the league.

He said: 'The clubs in the Premier League wanted to boot Portsmouth out there and then in March.

'it was only due to the intervention of the head of the Premier League, Richard Scudamore, that this course of action was averted'

He said the league then offered to make an parachute payment which would have come during the 2010/11 season.

'This deal enabled Portsmouth to complete the season,' added Mr Sheldon.

'This was presented to Portsmouth very much as a fait accompli - they could take it or leave it.

'Mr Scudamore persuaded all 19 other clubs to do this.

'The other clubs wanted Pprtsmouth Football Club to go to the wall and divide all the TV and other money among themselves,' added Mr Sheldon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saint lard

saint lard

Posted
Posted

phpN6yhatAcheson-150.jpgspacer.gifMark:

Richard Sheldon QC, representing Pompey, has just got to his feet.

He said that in March this year the other 19 clubs in the Premiership wanted the Blues kicked out of the league.

He said: 'The clubs in the Premier League wanted to boot Portsmouth out there and then in March.

'it was only due to the intervention of the head of the Premier League, Richard Scudamore, that this course of action was averted'

He said the league then offered to make an parachute payment which would have come during the 2010/11 season.

'This deal enabled Portsmouth to complete the season,' added Mr Sheldon.

'This was presented to Portsmouth very much as a fait accompli - they could take it or leave it.

'Mr Scudamore persuaded all 19 other clubs to do this.

'The other clubs wanted Pprtsmouth Football Club to go to the wall and divide all the TV and other money among themselves,' added Mr Sheldon.

 

 

 

I know we are not getting this in it's context,but rather strange?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted

Any chance of a quick recap of where we are? Got stuck fitting web cams into a lions den all afternoon yesterday and went to Newquay on a night out last night. So only just got up and could do with the News linky thingy and a rough idea of how HMRC's turn in court finished off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Merovingian

Merovingian

Posted
Posted
Mero how are you feeling today, confident? The HMRC don't from the little reported seem to be that special, but we are only getting snippets

 

To difficult to call really - the football creditors rule is not our problem - something that should have been sorted out in a seperate case - if the secured creditors are allowed to vote as part of the CVA then its no good the revenue crying about it now, they have had ample time to challenge this outside of the jurisdiction of this case - a case should be bought to get it changed seperately as its not directly relevant to this CVA as such its a bigger picture issue.

 

I thought they would have a lot stronger case in all honesty but I still expect us to lose because of a combination of all the points, however if we have not actually broken a written law as such we may get "lucky"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tony13579

tony13579

Posted
Posted
Any chance of a quick recap of where we are? Got stuck fitting web cams into a lions den all afternoon yesterday and went to Newquay on a night out last night. So only just got up and could do with the News linky thingy and a rough idea of how HMRC's turn in court finished off?

 

Scant reporting by the news who skippeed any good points or law makes it hard to judge read the bits in black on the feed from the news http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/custompages/custompage.aspx?pageid=82690

Link to comment
Share on other sites
qwertySFC

qwertySFC

Posted
Posted
12:30 [Comment From TCWTB TCWTB : ]

Perhaps all of Portsea should boycott paying tax. That would teach HMRC a lesson.

 

 

 

...................... LEGEND!!!

 

Whats new in that statement then..a lot can't pay their tax cos their waiting on invoices to be paid apparently

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crab Lungs

Crab Lungs

Posted
Posted
Has Mr Sheldon forgotten which side he is on? How does this help his case?

 

I think it's a case of tarnishing all the clubs in the Premier League...

 

"If we're going down, you're all coming with us"

 

Ah, the famous, dignified Portsmouth defence...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saint lard

saint lard

Posted
Posted

"Lots of blather from HMRC, lots of trying to have their cake and eat it too, lots of irrelevant stuff.

 

They don't like Chainrai and pointed out that he controlled the club through his bank account and solicitor throughout.

 

They demonstrated this by pointing out Chainrai and Kushnir directed Jacob on Dec 9th to undertake that all future moneys from the premier league would pass to them. Jacob also wrote to the PL on behalf of the club promising them the club would use the money to pay football creditors so hmrc brief said some unkind words about Jacob.

 

The problem point was their claim that they had an undertaking from Andronikou on May 5th agreeing they could vote the £13m but it would be listed as 'objected to'. They said he reneged on this agreement. we have to answer that point, because if he accepted it was a legal assessment we have a problem. However, I think the answer is going to be that this would leave them free to simply issue an assessment of tax liability that makes them a ransom creditor in every case and then leave the bankrupt entity to try and appeal it after being denied a CVA - hardly fair."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted
To difficult to call really - the football creditors rule is not our problem - something that should have been sorted out in a seperate case - if the secured creditors are allowed to vote as part of the CVA then its no good the revenue crying about it now, they have had ample time to challenge this outside of the jurisdiction of this case - a case should be bought to get it changed seperately as its not directly relevant to this CVA as such its a bigger picture issue.

 

I thought they would have a lot stronger case in all honesty but I still expect us to lose because of a combination of all the points, however if we have not actually broken a written law as such we may get "lucky"

 

 

For a skate I actually look forward to some of your posts. Always pretty ballanced and understanding of the situation. Anyone will gladly take advantage of a situation if they can but not many will admit they would be in the wrong for doing so.

 

Think had we got away without the - points we would have been glad to take advantage of the situation offered but there wouldnt have been many that would have been happy or bullish about it.

 

You fall into the same bracket so have figured out that you must actually be a saint suffering some major colour blindness and directional disfunction. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stevegrant

stevegrant

Posted
Posted
phpN6yhatAcheson-150.jpgspacer.gifMark:

Richard Sheldon QC, representing Pompey, has just got to his feet.

He said that in March this year the other 19 clubs in the Premiership wanted the Blues kicked out of the league.

He said: 'The clubs in the Premier League wanted to boot Portsmouth out there and then in March.

'it was only due to the intervention of the head of the Premier League, Richard Scudamore, that this course of action was averted'

He said the league then offered to make an parachute payment which would have come during the 2010/11 season.

'This deal enabled Portsmouth to complete the season,' added Mr Sheldon.

'This was presented to Portsmouth very much as a fait accompli - they could take it or leave it.

'Mr Scudamore persuaded all 19 other clubs to do this.

'The other clubs wanted Pprtsmouth Football Club to go to the wall and divide all the TV and other money among themselves,' added Mr Sheldon.

 

 

 

I know we are not getting this in it's context,but rather strange?

Right, so they've been advanced the parachute payments (despite the lying **** Scudamore saying at the time that they couldn't do so because the Premier League doesn't keep millions of pounds of cash resting in its accounts), but the CVA budget includes all of the £48m IIRC... :suspicious:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shrek

Shrek

Posted
Posted
Right, so they've been advanced the parachute payments (despite the lying **** Scudamore saying at the time that they couldn't do so because the Premier League doesn't keep millions of pounds of cash resting in its accounts), but the CVA budget includes all of the £48m IIRC... :suspicious:

 

Reminds me of that scene in Blackadder where George is (badly) defending Blackadder after the delicious plump breated pigeon incident (Speckled Jim)! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nexstar

Nexstar

Posted
Posted

[Comment From raging reg ]

The Premiership and the FA never forgave us for reaching and winning the FA cup in 2008 - We were too much of a 'lowly' team. No money in it for them.

 

No, I don't expect there is much money in the FA Cup for the Premier League...!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
Right, so they've been advanced the parachute payments (despite the lying **** Scudamore saying at the time that they couldn't do so because the Premier League doesn't keep millions of pounds of cash resting in its accounts), but the CVA budget includes all of the £48m IIRC... :suspicious:

 

will the HMRC pick up on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ashtead Saint

Ashtead Saint

Posted
Posted

Not in court today, but I have a few further observations following on from yesterday:

 

1. There were very few people in court yesterday except for the participants – about 20-25 in the public seating. Court 52 is a small courtroom and that’s all it can take. I estimate about half of those were PFC employees/supporters and some looked like they could be representatives of Chanrai. There were 3 or 4 Saints fans (including me and my daughter) and the rest looked like journalists. Most of the journalists were fairly ‘junior’ and one of them was clearly asleep at one point in the afternoon. Only one of the journalists had the air of a senior reporter. All in all, it’s not surprising that some of the press reporting from yesterday was wide of the mark, the honourable exception being the BBC News website, which homed in on the £13m image rights tax claim as being the key issue.

 

2. AA won’t be examined, still less cross examined, nor will any other witnesses. All of the evidence in this case is written, by way of affidavit.

 

3. Section 55 of the Taxes Management Act 1970, referred to yesterday by Mitchell, is very much in point. It states that once an assessment has been raised (which it was in May for the Image Rights tax/NI totalling £13m), the tax remains due and payable notwithstanding any pending appeal. The only exception to that is if a Tribunal rules, following application for postponement by the taxpayer, that payment of some or all of the tax should be postponed pending the appeal. There has been no such Tribunal determination, so AA is in a deep hole on this point. I can’t see how he can dig himself out of it.

 

4. Don’t read too much into the suggestion from AA’s QC yesterday that HMRC should consider whether it ought to pressing ahead with the appeal. He was making the point that if the result of the appeal is that PFC is liquidated, the Parachute payments won’t be made and HMRC would get less than under the CVA. The answer to that is:

 

(i) HMRC winning the appeal will not necessarily result in PFC liquidation.

 

(ii) Even if it does, HMRC can then, via the liquidator, seek to recover the various ‘dispositions’ (to Chanrai/PP and football creditors) which have been made since the winding up petition under S127 and in addition challenge the PL/FL golden share/insolvency policy/parachute payment/FCR setup as being contrary to public policy/contrary to the insolvency rules.

 

(iii) The 20p in the £1 under the CVA is hardly ‘money in the bank’.

 

(iv) It sends a fairly strong message to other clubs about the consequences of messing with HMRC.

 

HMRC have seen it for what it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SO16_Saint

SO16_Saint

Posted
Posted
will the HMRC pick up on that?

 

Ahem..... http://search2.hmrc.gov.uk/kbroker/hmrc/contactus/search.ladv?sr=0&as=1&cs=ISO-8859-1&sc=hmrc&sf=&sm=0&nh=50&ha=34&tx0=21&fl0=contactid:&tx1=&raction=view

or intenquiries@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk

 

or

Excise and Customs Helpline

 

For excise duties and customs telephone enquiriesOpening hours8.00 am to 8.00 pm Monday to Friday

Closed weekends and bank holidays0845 010 9000

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
Right, so they've been advanced the parachute payments (despite the lying **** Scudamore saying at the time that they couldn't do so because the Premier League doesn't keep millions of pounds of cash resting in its accounts), but the CVA budget includes all of the £48m IIRC... :suspicious:

 

will the HMRC pick up on that?

 

The CVA went out in May before the changes to parachute payments to raise them to £48m were confirmed in June. However at the time of the CVA it was known it was likely to happen. I don't know how this was reflected in the CVA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gaz

gaz

Posted
Posted

[Comment From TCWTB TCWTB : ]

If we win this then we should make AA our chairman, he has done a great job! I might get his name on the back of my Pompey shirt!

 

I have a Coffee-Laptop problem now. :D Well Done! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
Not in court today, but I have a few further observations following on from yesterday:

 

1. There were very few people in court yesterday except for the participants – about 20-25 in the public seating. Court 52 is a small courtroom and that’s all it can take. I estimate about half of those were PFC employees/supporters and some looked like they could be representatives of Chanrai. There were 3 or 4 Saints fans (including me and my daughter) and the rest looked like journalists. Most of the journalists were fairly ‘junior’ and one of them was clearly asleep at one point in the afternoon. Only one of the journalists had the air of a senior reporter. All in all, it’s not surprising that some of the press reporting from yesterday was wide of the mark, the honourable exception being the BBC News website, which homed in on the £13m image rights tax claim as being the key issue.

 

2. AA won’t be examined, still less cross examined, nor will any other witnesses. All of the evidence in this case is written, by way of affidavit.

 

3. Section 55 of the Taxes Management Act 1970, referred to yesterday by Mitchell, is very much in point. It states that once an assessment has been raised (which it was in May for the Image Rights tax/NI totalling £13m), the tax remains due and payable notwithstanding any pending appeal. The only exception to that is if a Tribunal rules, following application for postponement by the taxpayer, that payment of some or all of the tax should be postponed pending the appeal. There has been no such Tribunal determination, so AA is in a deep hole on this point. I can’t see how he can dig himself out of it.

 

4. Don’t read too much into the suggestion from AA’s QC yesterday that HMRC should consider whether it ought to pressing ahead with the appeal. He was making the point that if the result of the appeal is that PFC is liquidated, the Parachute payments won’t be made and HMRC would get less than under the CVA. The answer to that is:

 

(i) HMRC winning the appeal will not necessarily result in PFC liquidation.

 

(ii) Even if it does, HMRC can then, via the liquidator, seek to recover the various ‘dispositions’ (to Chanrai/PP and football creditors) which have been made since the winding up petition under S127 and in addition challenge the PL/FL golden share/insolvency policy/parachute payment/FCR setup as being contrary to public policy/contrary to the insolvency rules.

 

(iii) The 20p in the £1 under the CVA is hardly ‘money in the bank’.

 

(iv) It sends a fairly strong message to other clubs about the consequences of messing with HMRC.

 

HMRC have seen it for what it was.

 

Very informative and you seem to be very astute at this game. Makes me feel that the HMRC are doing better than i thought Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tony13579

tony13579

Posted
Posted
Not in court today, but I have a few further observations following on from yesterday:

 

3. Section 55 of the Taxes Management Act 1970, referred to yesterday by Mitchell, is very much in point. It states that once an assessment has been raised (which it was in May for the Image Rights tax/NI totalling £13m), the tax remains due and payable notwithstanding any pending appeal. The only exception to that is if a Tribunal rules, following application for postponement by the taxpayer, that payment of some or all of the tax should be postponed pending the appeal. There has been no such Tribunal determination, so AA is in a deep hole on this point. I can’t see how he can dig himself out of it.

.

 

very important :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redbul

Redbul

Posted
Posted

[Comment From Rossi Rossi : ]

The Other Prem Teams saw us as the Black Sheep, with our out of date ground, our ancient stands, playing facilities etc...they also didn't like it coz we had the damn best fans in the league...

 

Is this another post from this end of the M27? Rossi being the plural of rosso....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stevegrant

stevegrant

Posted
Posted

I've just double-checked the cash flow forecast in the final CVA proposal, as I'm bored on my lunch hour.

 

Year ended 2011: Premier League and Sky TV facility fee: £18,894,499

Year ended 2012: Premier League and Sky TV facility fee: £14,449,339

Year ended 2013: Premier League and Sky TV facility fee: £7,738,467

Year ended 2014: Premier League and Sky TV facility fee: £6,560,651

Total: £47,642,956

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
[Comment From Rossi Rossi : ]

The Other Prem Teams saw us as the Black Sheep, with our out of date ground, our ancient stands, playing facilities etc...they also didn't like it coz we had the damn best fans in the league...

 

Is this another post from this end of the M27? Rossi being the plural of rosso....?

 

He failed to include the trademark sign so he better have a good lawyer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
I've just double-checked the cash flow forecast in the final CVA proposal, as I'm bored on my lunch hour.

 

Year ended 2011: Premier League and Sky TV facility fee: £18,894,499

Year ended 2012: Premier League and Sky TV facility fee: £14,449,339

Year ended 2013: Premier League and Sky TV facility fee: £7,738,467

Year ended 2014: Premier League and Sky TV facility fee: £6,560,651

Total: £47,642,956

 

Well that is a huge error on their part then. You would think HMRC would pick up on such a major point.

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

Important Information

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

  I accept