Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

saint1977

saint1977

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.

 

Point 3 is the key one for me, if the Judge decides that AA hasn't gone through the proper appeal process on HMRC's Assessment (which can take at the very least months if not years) and it would appear that he hasn't, Pompey could have a big problem. What would stop every business in the land owing PAYE or VAT arrears doing exactly the same? Could the CVA be suspended and a fast-track appeal put in by AA? It wouldn't be resolved for quite some time even so.

 

Where does any investigation into the alleged wrongdoings and trading whilst insolvent fit into this? If I was the judge (forgetting the fact I'm a Saints fan), I'd be looking at Pompey's long, long history of defaulting and financial mismanagement notwithstanding the other charges raised against former PFC employees and be seriously thinking about whether even with the CVA in place, this was a viable concern. This is a very pertinent point when you consider that they are trying to sign PL players like Sonko on loan when they should be playing kids to meet the CVA schedule.

 

Scudamore disgusts me. Not surprised at all but I bet there are 17 very cross PL Chairs out there waiting to extract their revenge at the next opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ashtead Saint

Ashtead Saint

Posted
Posted
Makes me feel that the HMRC are doing better than i thought Thanks

 

Actually, I was not over impressed with Mitchell yesterday.

 

Having said that, the main point (£13m Tax assessment on Image Rights being a liability which should have been allowed voting rights on the CVA) seems to me so straightforward that it does not need much help from counsel.

 

One of Mann J's first questions to Mitchell yesterday was how much of their disallowed (by AA in the CVA vote) claim HMRC needed to get allowed in order to reach the 25% mark. I am sure that Mann J has this point firmly in mind.

 

Fortunately, the judge decides the case on the facts and law, not on who makes the finest speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted

Just thinking about Scudamore's comments this morning (or when ever they were)

 

If the PL had to step in to give some of the parachute payments in order for the club to finish the rest of the season, does that not mean they were trading whilst insolvent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tony13579

tony13579

Posted
Posted
Actually, I was not over impressed with Mitchell yesterday.

 

Having said that, the main point (£13m Tax assessment on Image Rights being a liability which should have been allowed voting rights on the CVA) seems to me so straightforward that it does not need much help from counsel.

 

One of Mann J's first questions to Mitchell yesterday was how much of their disallowed (by AA in the CVA vote) claim HMRC needed to get allowed in order to reach the 25% mark. I am sure that Mann J has this point firmly in mind.

 

Fortunately, the judge decides the case on the facts and law, not on who makes the finest speech.

 

There are un-seen signals in court. If the judge agrees with a point he will indicate to the barrister and the barrister will move on to the next point.

It may appear that 90% of time is spent flogging a dead horse but the bits agreed can often slip past in a jiffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crab Lungs

Crab Lungs

Posted
Posted
Just thinking about Scudamore's comments this morning (or when ever they were)

 

If the PL had to step in to give some of the parachute payments in order for the club to finish the rest of the season, does that not mean they were trading whilst insolvent?

 

To me it does, it was obvious to everyone yet this conveniently gets swept under the carpet.

 

The fact that Portsmouth's defence is part-centered around that is very telling.. yet it all gets swept under the carpet. PFC seem to be pointing the finger at the disgusting entity that saved them in a "if we go down, you are coming with us" kind of mentality...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted

Is this one of ours? Not heard this point raised here?

 

[Comment From Oxo54 Oxo54 : ]

There is an anomaly here (one of several) - if the players were paid to offshore accounts in the guise of 'image rights' then they were not employees of the company. If they were not employees of the company then whose employees were they? Were they deemed to be self-employed or were they the employees of the company/organisation(s) receiving the offshore payments? If the latter - then the Tevez question emerges as to who actually owns them as employees. Furthermore, if they were paid under this guise of 'image rights' then why does a figure amounting to tens of millions of pounds appear in the Company's audited accounts under the heading salaries & wages. The whole thing is a transparent farce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EastleighSoulBoy

EastleighSoulBoy

Posted
Posted
Is this one of ours? Not heard this point raised here?

 

[Comment From Oxo54 Oxo54 : ]

There is an anomaly here (one of several) - if the players were paid to offshore accounts in the guise of 'image rights' then they were not employees of the company. If they were not employees of the company then whose employees were they? Were they deemed to be self-employed or were they the employees of the company/organisation(s) receiving the offshore payments? If the latter - then the Tevez question emerges as to who actually owns them as employees. Furthermore, if they were paid under this guise of 'image rights' then why does a figure amounting to tens of millions of pounds appear in the Company's audited accounts under the heading salaries & wages. The whole thing is a transparent farce.

 

I think it is, most of the posts are us lot I reckon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

what a great opening defence! - Surely by confirming that they are living off advanced parachute payments already their counsel has declared the CVA inaccurate, fatally flawed and unworkable?

 

He might as well have chucked a rope around a beam and climbed on a chair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
Just thinking about Scudamore's comments this morning (or when ever they were)

 

If the PL had to step in to give some of the parachute payments in order for the club to finish the rest of the season, does that not mean they were trading whilst insolvent?

 

it shows him to be a lair, if one minute he says he was duped and then the next the Pompey man saying he gave them money to keep them going.

I suspect the opening statement by the Pompey QC today was to discredit Scudamores piece in the Sun.

It does re-enforce my belief that the PL went out of their way to help Pompey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted
it shows him to be a lair, if one minute he says he was duped and then the next the Pompey man saying he gave them money to keep them going.

I suspect the opening statement by the Pompey QC today was to discredit Scudamores piece in the Sun.

It does re-enforce my belief that the PL went out of their way to help Pompey.

 

There just seems to be so much contradictory evidence all over the place. I hope the written evidence thats been submitted is a little easier for the judge to decipher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tony13579

tony13579

Posted
Posted

the news

Mark: Chris says that the court clerk has told reporters not to use phones in court, which is making it difficult to run as many updates as we'd like to.

 

He's off to grab a sarnie now and then will send a piece before the hearing gets underway again at 2pm.

 

As for this afternoon, he'll pop out of court as often as is possible without the risk of losing the gist of proceedings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted

Ive just checked the feed and seen a couple of mine got on now too. I am however getting bored of posted silly coments on there now. Some of the others from here have made me laugh though.

 

OMG Is Matt someone from here or have I actually duped one of the deluded? lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trader

Trader

Posted
Posted
Just thinking about Scudamore's comments this morning (or when ever they were)

 

If the PL had to step in to give some of the parachute payments in order for the club to finish the rest of the season, does that not mean they were trading whilst insolvent?

 

Also, were they actually relegated when they received these payments? I can't actually remember whether they were already down in March.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tony13579

tony13579

Posted
Posted

These two got through

13:27 [Comment From AnExpert AnExpert : ]

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.

 

13:35 [Comment From Tony Tony : ]

a tax bill raised is under uk law payable untill it has been discharged. It cannot be disreguarded from a cva

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tony13579

tony13579

Posted
Posted

The News 14:01

Mark:

 

 

Chris has now consumed his sarnie (and thank you to all those who posted messages expressing the hope that he would enjoy his lunchtime nourishment!)

 

 

 

 

 

He says that Mr Sheldon is expected to take all afternoon putting the club's case and that a verdict is still expected from the judge at some point tomorrow.

 

 

 

 

 

Chris adds: 'One of the interesting points to come out of the hearing this morning was a reference to the antagonism which exists between Sasha Gaydamak and Belram Chainrai.'

 

 

 

 

 

Mr Mitchell, the HMRC barrister, made a passing comment about the current dispute over car parking outside Fratton Park.

 

 

This land is still owned by former club owner Mr Gaydamak and was referred to by Mitchell as 'a ransom strip'.

 

 

He told the judge that should the Revenue's appeal fail Mr Chainrai was 'likely' to take control of the club.

 

 

'This will make the situation worse at the club because of the conflict between them,' Mr Mitchell said.

 

 

Chris says that otherwise, there was much debate this morning between the two QCs and the judge about the intricacies of the Insolvency Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tony13579

tony13579

Posted
Posted
Mr Mitchell, the HMRC barrister, made a passing comment about the current dispute over car parking outside Fratton Park.

This land is still owned by former club owner Mr Gaydamak and was referred to by Mitchell as 'a ransom strip'.

a ransom strip is a bit of land about a foot wide a builder keeps to prevent you developing land you won without giving him more dosh.

 

Gaydamak is rightfully holding onto a few fields worth of land that Pompey and its following owners havn't paid for!

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