Pompey Takeover Saga

[bridge too far]

Brilliant work, Deano. Why weren't you in court?

 

 

He should send his work to the Guardian or to Matt Slater and let them do some investigative journalism type probe!

[Dark Munster]

Even writing off 80% of the unsecured debt and taking remaining parachute payments into account, it really would be a **** poor investment.

 

He has lent them £17m (excluding interest) so far, and paid himself back £4m (?). There are god knows how much secured debt that needs paying off (£38m??), and £20m odd of unsecured (now that most has been written off). Then £50m odd would be needed to build a stadium (one has to be built soon as the dump is falling down) although this could be postponed for a few years. New players are needed desperately, probably 7 or 8, and lets call that another £20m. Then it is a question of what income there is likely to be against what he can pay himself back while keeping the club solvent. QED **** poor investment.

What if they get promoted at the first attempt, and then sells immediately after?

[saintjay77]

The ruling by UNJust Mann is available for viewing

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/2013.html

 

1/ snip

 

IMO UNJUST is completely in love with Comical_Andy and believes every word he says!

 

I know HMRC said they didn't plan to appeal but didn't they also say they were going to consider there position once the full sumery was out or something?

 

After reading it would they consider an appeal or is it really not worth it?

[St Chalet]

Forget the debt - it's gone, wiped out, Kaput.

 

Even having basically having their debt written off they have:

 

- A team they cannot afford in NPC

- No stadium

- No offices

- No training facilities

- An average sized fan base

- A sponsor that is hedging their bets

- No revenue coming in from shirt sales

 

If I was being uber cynical I would add:

 

- A Hong Kong businessman keeping the corpse on life support to simply rape it for parachute payments.

- The very real prospect of massive points deductions due to tax evasion and agent misuse.

 

As we have seen, the bastards won't die, but their pain will be hilarious to watch all season.

 

Gents, this is not the end of the thread, this is Pompey Takeover Saga (Season Two). I for one will be watching it unfold.

[rallyboy]

nice work.

 

So apart from AA's figures being adrift by a mere £34M and the cva being completely unworkable, Injustice Mann didn't miss a thing!

 

The parachute payments still seem to be a grey area with several versions of what they have already had, but the real crippler must be the wagebill with a few heavy earners still guzzling with their snouts in the Fratton trough.

 

 

And I'm not convinced that we've seen the last of Storrie at the scene of the crime, he's still loitering.....

[Draino76]

Deano; and to think you only replied to posts with 'crumbs!' or 'cripes!'.

[Dark Munster]

IF this judge has technically gone against the law what will his position be IF the creditors end up with nothing anyway because Pompey fail to deliver the CVA ?

I reckon his position will be the same either way: horizontal on some nice beach in the Bahamas.

[Dark Munster]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2010/08/pompey_1_hmrc_0.html#comments

 

Interesting article

"You see, HMRC waited until two days before the vote to increase its claim from £24m to £37m."

 

Someone refresh my memory please: is that true? I thought it happened quite a bit before the vote.

[Dark Munster]

Surely 'someone' will be checking bank accounts to make sure what they said they owe is actually paid out in the agreed timescales...

 

Yours with too much faith in our legal system,

Trousers

AA is already talking about paying back between £16-20 million. So now there isn't even an exact figure. Just like the sham where they bluffed their way out of court in the insolvency case and the debt amount then, now I'd bet the same will happen with the unsecured debt amount. (Deano6's analysis above is great reading).

 

CHEATING, LYING BASTARDS.

[trousers]

He should send his work to the Guardian or to Matt Slater and let them do some investigative journalism type probe!

 

I think Deano should seriously consider this. And copy to the FA and FL. There simply doesn't appear to be any balanced forensics in the public domain.

[Deano6]

I think Deano should seriously consider this. And copy to the FA and FL. There simply doesn't appear to be any balanced forensics in the public domain.

 

I'll not be doing anything with it - that's not my bag. But if someone wants to highlight it to anyone else feel free. It's all based on information in the public domain.

 

I've also just read through the Mr Mann's judgement and he does answer a few of the questions I couldn't reconcile (tho not in detail). He talks about the additional £30m odd added to the unsecured creditors and gives it the green light, and also says that disallowing the tax claims on Image Rights and EBT was not an unreasonable approach by the administrators - I'm pretty sure now they will only be 20p in the pound if upheld.

 

I'm more interested in seeing whether they'll be able to limp on and meet their CVA payments. Justice Mann does say there is a commercial risk that they won't, but that the alternative of liquidation would be worse for creditors.

 

 

Deano; and to think you only replied to posts with 'crumbs!' or 'cripes!'.

 

It's always been my life's dream to be mixed up with Deppo!

[Whitey Grandad]

If I understand the judgment correctly, the judge has said that it is ok for a company in administration to agree a CVA that pays some creditors more than others, providing that they have 'rules' that state that this is what will happen. This would seem to be contrary to insolvency law.

[Deano6]

If I understand the judgment correctly, the judge has said that it is ok for a company in administration to agree a CVA that pays some creditors more than others, providing that they have 'rules' that state that this is what will happen. This would seem to be contrary to insolvency law.

 

No he's not saying that. He's saying it's ok the agree a CVA where some creditors get paid more than others if that revenue stream funding the difference would never be available to the other creditors. It's the same as Wimbledon (even tho we may not want it to be). In this case he's saying that if the CVA weren't agreed Pompey would go insolvent and the Premier League wouldn't pay the parachute payments at all. There is just no scenario where HMRC could benefit from them, so they are not being unfairly prejudiced. He notes that HMRC would probably disagree with a few of the assumptions, but decides that's how he sees it (and he's probably right).

 

It is not "just because they have rules that say so" but rather because the parachute payments are at the discretion of the Premier League.

 

Besides, judges get to make (and ammend) the laws.

[Weston Super Saint]

There is just no scenario where HMRC could benefit from them,

 

I suspect there is a scenario whereby the club gets liquidated and HMRC goes after the officers of the company who knowingly traded while insolvent....

[Deano6]

I suspect there is a scenario whereby the club gets liquidated and HMRC goes after the officers of the company who knowingly traded while insolvent....

 

That will happen anyway. It's part of the CVA terms. The current club is getting liqidated and HMRC will be able to pursue the former directors. The NewCo will be formed and the league share will be transferred to it (subject to League approval...possibility for points deductions here).

 

That is a separate issue from whether HMRC could benefit from Parachute Payments.

[Rusty]

33/ Thick Skates couldn't get all their troops to view the same way !

It was Paul Hart.

AA is already talking about paying back between £16-20 million. So now there isn't even an exact figure.

Of course there isn't an exact figure, if promoted creditors receive another 5p/£, so the amount varies depending on if/when promoted, and presumably how long the Prem stay lasts.

[Whitey Grandad]

No he's not saying that. He's saying it's ok the agree a CVA where some creditors get paid more than others if that revenue stream funding the difference would never be available to the other creditors. It's the same as Wimbledon (even tho we may not want it to be). In this case he's saying that if the CVA weren't agreed Pompey would go insolvent and the Premier League wouldn't pay the parachute payments at all. There is just no scenario where HMRC could benefit from them, so they are not being unfairly prejudiced. He notes that HMRC would probably disagree with a few of the assumptions, but decides that's how he sees it (and he's probably right).

 

It is not "just because they have rules that say so" but rather because the parachute payments are at the discretion of the Premier League.

 

Besides, judges get to make (and ammend) the laws.

Thanks, that helps to clarify things somewhat. Wasn't there an alternative CVA on offer that would have given HMRC more money? How about the argument that they have been unfairly prejudiced because some of the creditors who voted were always going to get 100% of what they were owed? And if the late, extra assessment on image rights were included they would get a bigger share of what little pot was remaining?

[Deano6]

It was all considered, but dismissed. Except the Griffins alternative CVA, which was not mentioned. It's in Mr Mann's judgement that someone posted on the last page.

 

 

I don't think they would have got a bigger share of the pot with the image rights claim. They would just have been able to block the CVA and force Pompey into liquidation, thus getting 0p in the pound. I think they're still entitled to claim for those amounts (may end up going back to court to prove them), and if successful they would get 20% of the amounts [i think]. This is where the share of the pot for voting doesn't necessarily match the share of the pot for receiving money.

[Kingsbridge Saint]

Like Deano I have now read Manns judgement in detail, from a tax accountants perspective.

 

For those still baffled as to why the judge didn't allow the extra 13M of the Revenues claim (for Image Rights and Employee Benefit Trust payments) to count for CVA voting purposes.......

 

It hinged on the fact that the Revenue should have conceded that Pompeys players had some value in their image rights. That would have meant that some of the image rights payments validly fell outside the scope of PAYE/NIC - notwithstanding that logic suggests the vast majority of those were a blatant tax dodge. The fact that some of the total was arguably valid meant that the exact amount of PAYE/NIC avoided could not be determined at the salient time and therefore the entire 13M assessment could be treated by AA as being inadmissable for CVA voting purposes, other than at a notional £1 x 2. Being £1 for the Image rights element, and £1 for the EBT element.

 

Which is exactly what AA did. He is, in my opinion, a greasy, manipulative, shady character operating in very murky waters. But the blokes clearly also a ****ing genius and deserves every penny of his consultancy fee.

Edited 7 August, 2010 by Kingsbridge Saint
Clarity

[trousers]

Like Deano I have now read Manns judgement in detail, from a tax accountants perspective.

 

For those still baffled as to why the judge didn't allow the extra 13M of the Revenues claim (for Image Rights and Employee Benefit Trust payments) to count for CVA voting purposes.......

 

It hinged on the fact that the Revenue should have conceded that Pompeys players had some value in their image rights. That would have meant that some of the image rights payments validly fell outside the scope of PAYE/NIC - notwithstanding that logic suggests the vast majority of those were a blatant tax dodge. The fact that some of the total was arguably valid meant that the exact amount of PAYE/NIC avoided could not be determined at the salient time and therefore the entire 13M assessment could be treated by AA as being inadmissable for CVA voting purposes, other than at a notional £1 x 2. Being £1 for the Image rights element, and £1 for the EBT element.

 

Which is exactly what AA did. He is, in my opinion, a greasy, manipulative, shady character operating in very murky waters. But the blokes clearly also a ****ing genius and deserves every penny of his consultancy fee.

 

But didn't HMRC only go for the 'extra' £13m in retaliation to AA 'inflating' the original debt figure? i.e. The really 'clever' bit was forcing HMRC into raising their claim in the first place, not the fact that HMRC then (inevitably) 'bungled' the detail of their increment.

 

Why didn't the judge subject the amount AA increased the debt by with the same level of forensics that he gave to HMRC's increased amount?

[Kingsbridge Saint]

But didn't HMRC only go for the 'extra' £13m in retaliation to AA 'inflating' the original debt figure? i.e. The really 'clever' bit was forcing HMRC into raising their claim in the first place, not the fact that HMRC then (inevitably) 'bungled' the detail of their increment.

 

Why didn't the judge subject the amount AA increased the debt by with the same level of forensics that he gave to HMRC's increased amount?

 

Due to the tight time constraints imposed on him I don't think he had time to broaden his areas of enquiry beyond the specific points raised in the Revenue's appeal. Valid question though nonetheless - and the non addressing of it is either very lucky or well engineered - take your pick.

[Faz]

Due to the tight time constraints imposed on him I don't think he had time to broaden his areas of enquiry beyond the specific points raised in the Revenue's appeal. Valid question though nonetheless - and the non addressing of it is either very lucky or well engineered - take your pick.

 

I'm not sure that this is one of the grounds for appeal of a CVA.

 

With regard to the CVA failing, you have to remember that the Supervisor can call a meeting and the creditors can change the terms and/or accpet a lesser amount. The greater risk is the revenue streams indicated in the CVA (mainly player sales in year1) not being available. If Chennery buys the club, it remains in CVA unless he comes to an alternative arrangement with the Creditors. He could propose a one off payment representing, say 2p in the £ now, which the Creditors could accept if the altwernative is failure, and take them out of CVA. In one fell swoop he has plugged the cashflow shortfal - ish. It will cost him £10m though, on top of the £14m already invested. I just wonder whats in it for him to buy them right now.

 

I also wonder if the FL are looking at his links to previous owners and making life difficult?

 

His £14m loan at 28%, plus rent for the ground sucks £5.5m pa from the club. A club where many of the top wage earners remain.

 

I just can't see them having the funds, or the players, to be a realistic proposition. And their survival is not yet guaranteed. And they have a rusting hulk for a ground. And no offices. Nor a car park. No training ground. No youth set up. Plus Tax irregularities. And possible unlicenced agents usage.

 

50,000 posts anyone?

[FMPR]

I'm not sure that this is one of the grounds for appeal of a CVA.

 

With regard to the CVA failing, you have to remember that the Supervisor can call a meeting and the creditors can change the terms and/or accpet a lesser amount. The greater risk is the revenue streams indicated in the CVA (mainly player sales in year1) not being available. If Chennery buys the club, it remains in CVA unless he comes to an alternative arrangement with the Creditors. He could propose a one off payment representing, say 2p in the £ now, which the Creditors could accept if the altwernative is failure, and take them out of CVA. In one fell swoop he has plugged the cashflow shortfal - ish. It will cost him £10m though, on top of the £14m already invested. I just wonder whats in it for him to buy them right now.

 

I also wonder if the FL are looking at his links to previous owners and making life difficult?

 

His £14m loan at 28%, plus rent for the ground sucks £5.5m pa from the club. A club where many of the top wage earners remain.

 

I just can't see them having the funds, or the players, to be a realistic proposition. And their survival is not yet guaranteed. And they have a rusting hulk for a ground. And no offices. Nor a car park. No training ground. No youth set up. Plus Tax irregularities. And possible unlicenced agents usage.

 

50,000 posts anyone?

 

Just need rid of Boateng and Utaka to get within our £13m per annum wage budget.

[Saint in Paradise]

I suspect that the car park issue will be sorted very quickly with mutual consent, as for

using an unlicenced agent that has been known for a while now and what has happened

so far ? Sweet F.A.

[Chin Strain]

Just need rid of Boateng and Utaka to get within our £13m per annum wage budget.

 

£13m wage budget will kill you in the NPC without significant additional investment.

[Saint_clark]

£13m wage budget will kill you in the NPC without significant additional investment.

 

And just imagine in 12 months time if they do go down again...

[Faz]

£13m wage budget will kill you in the NPC without significant additional investment.

 

Have a look at the finances of, say, Shefield United. They maintain a playing budget of around that level, but get average crowds in excess of 20k, and have an infrastructure which is of PL Standard (Ground and Training facilities). And still they have to subsidise wages through player sales. Pompeys playing budget, once again, allows for no investment in the clubitself. Thankfully, they're eating themselves to death. Sticking their own two fingers in the toaster to see if it works.

[Red and White Army]

Which is exactly what AA did. He is, in my opinion, a greasy, manipulative, shady character operating in very murky waters. But the blokes clearly also a ****ing genius and deserves every penny of his consultancy fee.

 

Or he just got lucky and the QC figured it out.

[dubai_phil]

Just need rid of Boateng and Utaka to get within our £13m per annum wage budget.

 

Perspective

 

Here's some "allegedly plucked out of thin air" numbers for a comparison

 

SLH 2008 Revenue was 14.9 million ---- Average attendance 21,000 ---- Average ticket price 25 pound

SLH 2009 Revenue (Estimated) was 12.3 million ----- Average Attendance 17,000 ---- Average ticket price 25 pound

 

So the skates have a 13mil playing budget eh?

 

TV revenue numbers must have gone up an awful lot to make the maths work for a 13mil playing staff budget. TV revenue was estimated at around 1.3mil in 2009. So let's assume it has doubled in one year we've been gone and that STILL doesn't leave very much cash in the pot to cover Chanrai's loan let alone the CVA

[dubai_phil]

Oh, have they sorted out a deal with Sacha yet over the use of his land and the Health & Safety issues?

 

Saw that last week on South Today and not caught any update

[pfc123]

Like Deano I have now read Manns judgement in detail, from a tax accountants perspective.

 

For those still baffled as to why the judge didn't allow the extra 13M of the Revenues claim (for Image Rights and Employee Benefit Trust payments) to count for CVA voting purposes.......

 

It hinged on the fact that the Revenue should have conceded that Pompeys players had some value in their image rights. That would have meant that some of the image rights payments validly fell outside the scope of PAYE/NIC - notwithstanding that logic suggests the vast majority of those were a blatant tax dodge. The fact that some of the total was arguably valid meant that the exact amount of PAYE/NIC avoided could not be determined at the salient time and therefore the entire 13M assessment could be treated by AA as being inadmissable for CVA voting purposes, other than at a notional £1 x 2. Being £1 for the Image rights element, and £1 for the EBT element.

 

Which is exactly what AA did. He is, in my opinion, a greasy, manipulative, shady character operating in very murky waters. But the blokes clearly also a ****ing genius and deserves every penny of his consultancy fee.

 

Agreed. Top man. Don't care if it's 'wrong' that we've escaped. Don't care what anyone else thinks of us to be honest. All I know is that we've got a managable debt level and 48m in parachute payments to help us stabilise and regroup on a more sound footing, before getting back into the Prem

[Saint in Paradise]

Agreed. Top man. Don't care if it's 'wrong' that we've escaped. Don't care what anyone else thinks of us to be honest. All I know is that we've got a managable debt level and 48m in parachute payments to help us stabilise and regroup on a more sound footing, before getting back into the Prem

 

You forgot to add the bit about shafting lots of people who can't really afford to lose 80% of the money owed to them. :x

[pfc123]

You forgot to add the bit about shafting lots of people who can't really afford to lose 80% of the money owed to them. :x

 

Crocodile tears....

[dubai_phil]

Agreed. Top man. Don't care if it's 'wrong' that we've escaped. Don't care what anyone else thinks of us to be honest. All I know is that we've got a managable debt level and 48m in parachute payments to help us stabilise and regroup on a more sound footing, before getting back into the Prem

 

PMSL

 

You think the TEAM are ever going to see any of that 48 mil?

 

Oh dear, long way to go chaps to reach the land of understanding

[pfc123]

PMSL

 

You think the TEAM are ever going to see any of that 48 mil?

 

Oh dear, long way to go chaps to reach the land of understanding

 

Most if not all will go on debt repayment, which will leave us debt free. Not expecting miracles on the pitch as SC has little room to manouvere in the market, but do you know what, we're going to be just fine...

[Saint in Paradise]

Crocodile tears....

 

With that kind of attitude you could only be a pfc fan, perhaps in your next re-incarnation you might

come back as a normal human ? Probably not though as it would take at least 2 more lives before that will happen.

[Weston Super Saint]

Just need rid of Boateng and Utaka to get within our £13m per annum wage budget.

 

You make the getting 'rid of' bit sound so easy

 

Assuming you do one day get rid of them, and finally get within your playing wage budget, that doesn't leave any money for their replacements....

[Joesaint]

I recon pompy have some mountins to climb yet, how about new ground, training ground kinda required especially if you want to be a prem level. Also you then need an owner with the CLUBS best interest at heart that does not mean spend spend spend but it does mean invest in the above before anything.

 

I honestly feel you may get relegated again, you need the FL to let you bring players in while you off load youngsters and high wage earners now many teams in you position have just had what was in there squad in the youngsters and that is it, not sure its going to be a smooth ride) and hope it's not!

[pfc123]

With that kind of attitude you could only be a pfc fan, perhaps in your next re-incarnation you might

come back as a normal human ? Probably not though as it would take at least 2 more lives before that will happen.

 

Well, the bottom line is you were in the same state as us and failed to repay a very large chunk of what you owed on the new ground, so I don't think you can hold yourselves up as paragons of virtue...

[pfc123]

I recon pompy have some mountins to climb yet, how about new ground, training ground kinda required especially if you want to be a prem level. Also you then need an owner with the CLUBS best interest at heart that does not mean spend spend spend but it does mean invest in the above before anything.

 

I honestly feel you may get relegated again, you need the FL to let you bring players in while you off load youngsters and high wage earners now many teams in you position have just had what was in there squad in the youngsters and that is it, not sure its going to be a smooth ride) and hope it's not!

 

Fair enough, but as I said once before when you were all getting excited about our imminent liquidation, "it's the hope that kills you." Certainly from the anguished comments since Thursday, the hope IS killing you. Still, that's up to you- but you're only going to be more and more disappointed as our overall situation continues to improve...sorry.

[FMPR]

Well, the bottom line is you were in the same state as us and failed to repay a very large chunk of what you owed on the new ground, so I don't think you can hold yourselves up as paragons of virtue...

 

As much as I would like to agree, SFC's debt pales compared to ours. But they got into debt the right way however they built a stadium and training ground

[revolution saint]

Well, the bottom line is you were in the same state as us and failed to repay a very large chunk of what you owed on the new ground, so I don't think you can hold yourselves up as paragons of virtue...

 

As an aside did you know your avatar Tommy Cooper lived in Blackfield and went to school at Hardley? He was a saints fan but would have been proud of Portsmouth's financial magic tricks.

[Joesaint]

Fair enough, but as I said once before when you were all getting excited about our imminent liquidation, "it's the hope that kills you." Certainly from the anguished comments since Thursday, the hope IS killing you. Still, that's up to you- but you're only going to be more and more disappointed as our overall situation continues to improve...sorry.

 

I was excited about you getting liquidated but the fact you were not is not killing me I can't tell you how happy I am about Saints and also that I don't support pompy I am looking forward to an amazing season I don't care where we are right now we deserved what we got (not even slightly cheating compared to pompy) pompy on the other hand didnt use any money for investment, quite a big factor I feel and would not be looking forward to the season if I was a pompy fan.

 

Saying all that this thred is quality, and long may it continue!!

[rallyboy]

sorry pfc123, slight hiccup on the facts front......

 

you don't have a debt level that can be serviced yet, and you don't have £48M to come.

Other than that, spot on!

 

The figures clearly show that the business is still unsustainable without further 28% loans and wage reductions.

The court victory was progress, but not a long term solution.

 

 

You may well say you don't care what anybody thinks about you - Gary Glitter says the same, but he knows what people are thinking when they look at him.

[derry]

Just need rid of Boateng and Utaka to get within our £13m per annum wage budget.

 

Not strictly true. You have to be paid the transfer fees in full. Staged payments will cause a deficit this year.

[benjii]

Just need rid of Boateng and Utaka to get within our £13m per annum wage budget.

 

But that's not a realistic wage budget. Your turnover will be less than that. Our turnover in the Champ was less than that and we are a much bigger club. Parachute payment are spoken for. You'll be lucky to turn over 9m IMO so good luck with the 13m wage bill.

[OldNick]

But that's not a realistic wage budget. Your turnover will be less than that. Our turnover in the Champ was less than that and we are a much bigger club. Parachute payment are spoken for. You'll be lucky to turn over 9m IMO so good luck with the 13m wage bill.

 

The moment Pompey kick off this season they will be safe as the FL will be left with the same problem that the PL had, as in a team unable to fulfill their fixtures. They will again get help that scu's the league

[Whitey Grandad]

Well, the bottom line is you were in the same state as us and failed to repay a very large chunk of what you owed on the new ground, so I don't think you can hold yourselves up as paragons of virtue...

 

I don't believe the figure has ever been disclosed, but feel free to enlighten us.

[Kingsbridge Saint]

Wouldn't fancy a match day experience at Fratton this season - who in their right mind is going to supply them with catering, programmes, stewarding services, etc. etc. If I was a business owner and in the light of the recent judgment and the FCR I would not be supplying any football club, especially Cheats FC, except on a cash upfront basis.

[Gingeletiss]

Agreed. Top man. Don't care if it's 'wrong' that we've escaped. Don't care what anyone else thinks of us to be honest. All I know is that we've got a managable debt level and 48m in parachute payments to help us stabilise and regroup on a more sound footing, before getting back into the Prem

 

You really are a bottom feeder, arn't you? Your admin team have just gone cap in hand, to yet another spineless judge, boo hooing all over the court room, about how everyone is picking on you, please feel sorry for us, we only ripped of local charities a little bit, and after all, who needs a new school, so why worry about a few million owed in tax.

 

Then, like the slimeball you appear to be, you come on here and have your little gloat. You will disappear, because week by week,month by month, more and more pressure will be bought to bare, on your cheating slimey little excuse for football club, and when you go pop, there will be a collective sigh of relief, throughout the country.