pedg Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 So so far we have: Players who were possibly not eligible to vote voting in the CVA Including all parachute payments in CVA when they had already had an advance Ignoring a HMRC assessment without having the appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 Thier "interest" in the CVA vote was about future earnings, the cva was a vote about past earnings/debts? That sheldon point is irrelevent? But if they are creditors (or were at the time of the vote) this would mean that they would get 100% and not 20% like everybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 How can 'future earnings' be considered as part of the CVA? Any supplier to the club could argue that same point if that were the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 lmao, who is Andronikou's suntan!!!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burger Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 Thier "interest" in the CVA vote was about future earnings, the cva was a vote about past earnings/debts? That sheldon point is irrelevent? Tony, you should be in court as part of the HMRC team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 Quick question for the brainy ones amongst us. If Pompey were receiving payments from the EPL to carry on playing does that leave a door open to sue the league and FA for clubs that lost points or were knocked out of the FA cup? In terms of the Premier League points, it would depend on whether the club chairmen were offered a vote on it, I think. If Scudamore and Richards did it unilaterally, they could probably argue that players they played in the second half of the season, who they couldn't afford, were directly responsible for a loss of points and therefore potentially a loss of revenue if it affected their league position. Not sure we'd have any comeback for the FA Cup though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 So they got a sh*t load of money in January which they promptly used to sign a load of players which helped them get to the FA cup final. Disgraceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 [Comment From pompeypops ] those 19 clubs will get torn apart if we do win you can bet your life he will change the rule then take them apart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 lmao, who is Andronikou's suntan!!!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 No, allow me to doff my hat to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 I'dsay so, as they were clearly supporting a team financialy, who were insolvent! Is there anything "illegal" about supporting a company on the cusp of insolvency though? In the same way Leon Crouch did for us? In other words, isn't there a fine line between supporting a company who are actually insolvent versus a company would would be insolvent IF they weren't being propped up by a benefactor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 So they got a sh*t load of money in January which they promptly used to sign a load of players which helped them get to the FA cup final. Disgraceful. Money which should properly have gone to creditors, especially those who had long-term oustanding claims at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shufty Zubrik Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 Earlier Mr Sheldon said Pompey received an £11m parachute payment from the Premier League between December 24, 2009, and January 31 this year. There was a further payment of £1.5m between February 1 and February 26 and another of £1.7m after the club went into administration. So having admitted that WITHOUT the £11 million parachute advance they were insolvent how on earth did they get through the first Winding Up petion unless they LIED! No mention of 'Oh by the way we have £11 million that we forgot to mention' Cheating Bastards. NOTHING SHORT OF LIQUIDATION AND EXTERMINATION WILL DO NOW! Scudamore and the EPL are morally bankrupt on this - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 Money which should properly have gone to creditors, especially those who had long-term oustanding claims at the time. How is that allowed? (Ps I'm staying off the main board but the pull of this thread is too strong!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 (edited) So they have had £14m of parachute money already and still have roughly £22m of outstanding football debt which the Football authorities plan to withhold so they can pay it off. Leaves Pompey with only £12m of parachute payments over the next 4 years of the proposed CVA. Did it say that in the CVA? I don't think so.... Edited 4 August, 2010 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 Mr Sheldon, for Pompey, claimed player was perfectly entitled to vote under the terms of reference for the Company Voluntary Agreement to make a claim for £1.3m which would be owed to him over the rest of his contract . It thus follows that the HMRC would be entitled to PAYE and NIC as well. Logically if the players contractual entitlement can be included, so can the tax liability! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 US Baggage Handler - that's genius! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 [Comment From US Baggage Handler US Baggage Handler : ] Hey guys hope you don't lost this case as well , love to all from the US / Loved your company whilst you guys were here , Good luck Genius! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sticksaint Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 US Baggage Handler - that's genius! I lol`ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwertySFC Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 US Baggage Handler - that's genius! Your most welcome, I changed from Steve More An-dover as posts were not being displayed Posted a second one so hope fully it will go through lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sun of spain Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 That "Blue Victim" character is a wheeze ! First they post about morally winning anyway despite any Court verdict, and then they open up a can of worms questioning the validity of the CVA and parachute payments paid early. One of ours perhaps ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 From my very limited understanding of this court case, it strikes me that HMRC are merely bringing up the odd damaging accusation but mostly letting Pompey shoot themselves in the foot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 So they have had £14m of parachute money already and still have roughly £22m of outstanding football debt which the Football authorities plan to withhold so they can pay it off. Leaves Pompey with only £12m of parachute payments over the next 4 year of the proposed CVA. Did it say that in the CVA? *checks CVA proposal* Strangely, I can't find any mention of that... who'd have thought it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 Mr Sheldon, for Pompey, claimed player was perfectly entitled to vote under the terms of reference for the Company Voluntary Agreement to make a claim for £1.3m which would be owed to him over the rest of his contract . It thus follows that the HMRC would be entitled to PAYE and NIC as well. Logically if the players contractual entitlement can be included, so can the tax liability! Tis is so dodgy it is untrue, if Pompey get away with this it fly in the face of all natural justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 lmao @ US Baggage Handler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_stevo Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 no more cruciate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 *checks CVA proposal* Strangely, I can't find any mention of that... who'd have thought it? I wonder if many of the creditors would have voted differently if they knew that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 lol im giving up posting on there now. Yesterday I was on the ball. But partying hard in newquay till 4am has left my shizzle all messed up. Finding all the other posts hilarious. Keep it up people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 How can 'future earnings' be considered as part of the CVA? Any supplier to the club could argue that same point if that were the case Also pay for those employed is already proteted including thier 90 days severance pay in lou? of notice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 Getting difficult to seperate the real comments from ours on the News threads....love the 'Lets not pay taxes in protest' comment...like the pikey tw*ts pay any! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 Pretty sure the monies forwarded earlier were not actual parachute payments, but an advance on TV money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussexsaint Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 This is cracking, looks like the blue lawyers have done a better job than the HMRC lawyers at ****ing up their own case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 Pretty sure the monies forwarded earlier were not actual parachute payments, but an advance on TV money At that time they had not been relegated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 for our distant followers... Some are seeing lightning and thunder hitting portsmouth at this moment as a bad omen Frankinstines Toaster ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 Pretty sure the monies forwarded earlier were not actual parachute payments, but an advance on TV money It was one assume: If you stay up its an advance on next years TV money, if you go down its an advance on the parachute payment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 toaster making a comment about Sol and his 1.7m image rights that the would have to make £20 a shirt and sell 85k of them to get their money back. Many a true word said in jest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 Does seem strange that other clubs come out of administration without any issue and the first time its a Premier League club involved its like swimming in treacle to get CVA thru'! Is this for real from one of them or is it one of the clowns on here?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 I presume the £1.5m, £1.7m etc was the PL paying the players' wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draino76 Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 16:08 [Comment From swahar swahar : ] Whilst the HMRC no doubt have a point about fairness, it seems to me they should be tackling this through the proper channels not using the courts, and wasting more of our money in this way. I am no expert but this is how it appears to me. You got that right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 Does seem strange that other clubs come out of administration without any issue and the first time its a Premier League club involved its like swimming in treacle to get CVA thru'! :lol: That's probably the best of the lot. Failing to spot that finding a way of clearing £140m of debt is somewhat harder than clearing £140,000 of debt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 anyone know when the court cases of Storrie, Mandaric and Redknapp are due to take place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 16:08 [Comment From swahar swahar : ] Whilst the HMRC no doubt have a point about fairness, it seems to me they should be tackling this through the proper channels not using the courts, and wasting more of our money in this way. I am no expert but this is how it appears to me. You got that right. Aren't the courts the proper channels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwertySFC Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 lmao @ US Baggage Handler I was amazed it went through so quickly lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 [Comment From Ken Ken : ] One good thing lads. At least there is now no one in the world who hasn't heard of Portsmouth Football Club. Not many other teams can say that Yep, cos all publicity is good publicity. Worked well for Katie Price, Kerry Katona, Jade Goody, Amy Winehouse etc. They have glorious reputations now, don't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popyto Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 Quote Originally Posted by bridge too far View Post How can 'future earnings' be considered as part of the CVA? Any supplier to the club could argue that same point if that were the case not sure exactly how contracts within football work, But when players sign do they sign for a sallary that equates to £X millon over the years. or do they sign for £X million that is essentail paid in instalments? if the later then it could be argued that future earnings could be considered. not sure if there is a difference but if I get made redundant I get 3 months sallary, if a players contract gets cancelled dont the club unless there is a breach on players side need to cough up the full amount? hence they are essentially football creditors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussexsaint Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 Pretty sure the monies forwarded earlier were not actual parachute payments, but an advance on TV money Havent the blue lawyers just confirmed that it was indeed an advance of their parachute payments in thehigh court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 Getting difficult to seperate the real comments from ours on the News threads....love the 'Lets not pay taxes in protest' comment...like the pikey tw*ts pay any! Lol thought the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 :lol: That's probably the best of the lot. Failing to spot that finding a way of clearing £140m of debt is somewhat harder than clearing £140,000 of debt Add the fact that there are a raft of clubs who have been severely hurt by administration and the CVA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwertySFC Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 toaster making a comment about Sol and his 1.7m image rights that the would have to make £20 a shirt and sell 85k of them to get their money back. Many a true word said in jest Toaster is a SWF member just having a laugh at their expense lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 4 August, 2010 Share Posted 4 August, 2010 Is there a better service than the pompey news ?? You get crappy little snippets ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts