dubai_phil Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 How many times has Corp been proved completely wrong on this thread? Can't be bothered to count. Every Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 Dear BTF You (and we) have just been screwed by David Conn. Apparently he's just been on Talksport and said Pompey fans knew all this they found out by googling Antonov I think it is time for one of you lot to post a comment on one of his articles Hmm - the traitor, unless P**pey fans have also been contacting him. But I did spot this in the comments David Conn will be aware that a lot of this had all been researched and predicted on another football club's fan's website: so yes, weary familiarity and predictability too. Lots of concerns with the FPPT and the FL, but the news of the administrator being Andronikou is even more concerning. Surely there is a conflict of interest between the existing winding up for CSI and the previous one that he undertook for Chanrai. Who is he really working for (apart from himself, that is)? Unfortunately the comments section on his article is now closed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 Dear BTF You (and we) have just been screwed by David Conn. Apparently he's just been on Talksport and said Pompey fans knew all this they found out by googling Antonov I think it is time for one of you lot to post a comment on one of his articles Sure he is just doing the decent journalist (may be some left) thing and protecting his sources! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 Sure he is just doing the decent journalist (may be some left) thing and protecting his sources! Well if he is then he can register make an appearance and say thanks without giving away who he is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 Is corp Ho skates equivalent to our own life long saint . Also can somebody explain to me how android is again their administrator ? Does he have any connection to charai and co ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 Well if he is then he can register make an appearance and say thanks without giving away who he is To be fair to him, Phil, I never, ever said that I was a SFC fan. I thought that might detract from the information! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 Also can somebody explain to me how android is again their administrator ? Does he have any connection to charai and co ? From what I have read and understand, It looks like that not only did Chanarai have a charge against fratton park, he also had a charge against the entire CSI group / assets. Now that might seem strange, but it probably makes sense, due to the fact the 17 milllion rumored for pompey, included 5 players that would command a transfer fee, plus the remaining parchute payments and fratton park isnt actually worth that much......coupled with the fact that there really isnt any other significant revenue streams in the CSI group. So by the fact that he has called in the adminstrators against his charge, he gets to choose the administrator. Now it's not quite as black and white as that, but it is the general gist. Also worth remembering (As Guided Missile pointed out) android is selling a group of companies that potentially have been acquired and funded with peoples savings. Regardless of what he might think now, it might not be his to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 Cheers Gemmel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 BTF, I think YOU are the one being fair ref that D Conn. Never trust a journo, IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 Right, once you've gone down the dodgy Indian, Russian and UAE route for money and it's backfired where else can you go? Iran, Syria and North Korea spring to mind but any other ideas? Isle of Wight? Hayling Island? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 To be fair to him, Phil, I never, ever said that I was a SFC fan. I thought that might detract from the information! Interesting... hmmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 TBF he was aware from my email who I supported..protecting sources I feel. He might have thought I was an intelligent, articulate and morally upstanding P**mpey fan angry at what was going on. Hang on - intelligent, articulate, morally upstanding P**pey fan? Does not compute! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 David Conn will be aware that a lot of this had all been researched and predicted on another football club's fan's website: so yes, weary familiarity and predictability too. Lots of concerns with the FPPT and the FL, but the news of the administrator being Andronikou is even more concerning. Surely there is a conflict of interest between the existing winding up for CSI and the previous one that he undertook for Chanrai. Who is he really working for (apart from himself, that is)? Unfortunately the comments section on his article is now closed Definitely a Saints fan! But I wonder what SirBevois said to be pulled: can anyone here enlighten?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 Haven't checked myself but wasn't Chanrai's security over CSI supposed to have been registered as recently as a week or two ago? Now, it might be perfectly legit but it will certainly be subject to potential challenge from other creditors of CSI. If a company is on the brink of insolvency it can't simply do a deal with a particular creditor to give that creditor priority over the others. There is a thing called the "relevant period" in the run up to insolvency. If it turns out the company was in fact insolvent during the relevant period then the security granted during that period can possibly be unwound. This is what's known as granting a creditor a "preference" under the Insolvency Act '86. Andronikou has a duty to look into this (lol). I'm posting in a hurry but if anyone with more time wants to verify this point and post the relevant statutory extract for the interest of our other esteemed members then just Google "preference insolvency act" and you'll probably find the relevant stuff. In short, I'm saying that a recently registered charge over CSI may well stink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katalinic Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 Haven't checked myself but wasn't Chanrai's security over CSI supposed to have been registered as recently as a week or two ago? Now, it might be perfectly legit but it will certainly be subject to potential challenge from other creditors of CSI. If a company is on the brink of insolvency it can't simply do a deal with a particular creditor to give that creditor priority over the others. There is a thing called the "relevant period" in the run up to insolvency. If it turns out the company was in fact insolvent during the relevant period then the security granted during that period can possibly be unwound. This is what's known as granting a creditor a "preference" under the Insolvency Act '86. Andronikou has a duty to look into this (lol). I'm posting in a hurry but if anyone with more time wants to verify this point and post the relevant statutory extract for the interest of our other esteemed members then just Google "preference insolvency act" and you'll probably find the relevant stuff. In short, I'm saying that a recently registered charge over CSI may well stink. CONVERS SPORTS INITIATIVES PLC 07375628 PrintMailSaveDocumentsMonitor Mortgage Details Mortgage Type: DEBENTURE Date Charge Created: 22/11/11 Date Charge Registered: 24/11/11 Date Charge Satisfied: - Status: OUTSTANDING Person(s) Entitled: PORTPIN LIMITED Amount Secured: ALL MONIES DUE OR TO BECOME DUE FROM THE COMPANY TO THE CHARGEE ON ANY ACCOUNT WHATSOEVER Details: FIXED AND FLOATING CHARGE OVER THE UNDERTAKING AND ALL PROPERTY AND ASSETS PRESENT AND FUTURE, INCLUDING GOODWILL, BOOKDEBTS, UNCALLED CAPITAL, BUILDINGS, FIXTURES, FIXED PLANT & MACHINERY SEE IMAGEFOR FULL DETAILS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joesaint Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 looking at some comments in the news and love this; 205TaskForce Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 08:43 PM Crazy idea this but through my contacts at the met police l've got the address of Sir Richard Branson l know its a ten million to one shot but worth a try to find out if he has any contacts interested in buying the club. If anyone elso wants the address let me know because l won't be posting it on the forum but happy to give it at the next home game. Report Unsuitable Now is that not a bit naughty of the MET if true???????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 The cynic in me thinks that this was the plan all along. The good news for the creditors of CSI is that the administrator will be independent and give them all equal treatment. ROFL!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey-deacons-left-nut Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 I've got his address too.. Richard Branson Necker Island British Virgin Islands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 Not being up on insolvency laws, can some one explain the following: As I understand it cSI in admin, 'protects the companies' - but surely if CSI is an assett of the dodgy russian then the Lithuanians have first claim on it or not? seriously confused by thsi whole mess and the fact that AA has been apointed and is already mouthing off in the media that points deductions are unlikely seems at odds with a professional resolution of the situation (let alone the potential issue of conflict of interest) - it may well be that AA mouthing off is counterproductive given that the FL make take umbrage with someone telling them what they should/could be doing...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 (edited) CONVERS SPORTS INITIATIVES PLC 07375628 Mortgage Details Mortgage Type: DEBENTURE Date Charge Created: 22/11/11 Date Charge Registered: 24/11/11 Date Charge Satisfied: - Status: OUTSTANDING Person(s) Entitled: PORTPIN LIMITED Amount Secured: ALL MONIES DUE OR TO BECOME DUE FROM THE COMPANY TO THE CHARGEE ON ANY ACCOUNT WHATSOEVER Details: FIXED AND FLOATING CHARGE OVER THE UNDERTAKING AND ALL PROPERTY AND ASSETS PRESENT AND FUTURE, INCLUDING GOODWILL, BOOKDEBTS, UNCALLED CAPITAL, BUILDINGS, FIXTURES, FIXED PLANT & MACHINERY Created on the 22nd, Registered on the 24th, CSI go into admin days later. Obviously nothing fishy or smelly there.. ..edit.. I believe they CSI was put into admin on the 25th but it did not come out for a while so that makes it the day after this was registered? ..edit.. Yep definitely the 25th so the day after the charge was registered. "On the 25th of November 2011 my partner at UHY Hacker Young Andrew Andronikou and I were appointed as Joint Administrators to Convers Sports Initiative plc (CSI)," Edited 30 November, 2011 by pedg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleaford_Saint Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 looking at some comments in the news and love this; 205TaskForce Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 08:43 PM Crazy idea this but through my contacts at the met police l've got the address of Sir Richard Branson l know its a ten million to one shot but worth a try to find out if he has any contacts interested in buying the club. If anyone elso wants the address let me know because l won't be posting it on the forum but happy to give it at the next home game. Report Unsuitable Now is that not a bit naughty of the MET if true???????? Never been a Virgin in Skatesville yet ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 Never been a Virgin in Skatesville yet ;-) Yeah, says a lot for a place that it doesn't matter what age you are, you're still f**ked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyinthesky Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 Right, once you've gone down the dodgy Indian, Russian and UAE route for money and it's backfired where else can you go? Iran, Syria and North Korea spring to mind but any other ideas? Some suggestion that a group of Somali Pirates are keen to invest a wodge of cash in Pompey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 30 November, 2011 Share Posted 30 November, 2011 Haven't checked myself but wasn't Chanrai's security over CSI supposed to have been registered as recently as a week or two ago? Now, it might be perfectly legit but it will certainly be subject to potential challenge from other creditors of CSI. If a company is on the brink of insolvency it can't simply do a deal with a particular creditor to give that creditor priority over the others. There is a thing called the "relevant period" in the run up to insolvency. If it turns out the company was in fact insolvent during the relevant period then the security granted during that period can possibly be unwound. This is what's known as granting a creditor a "preference" under the Insolvency Act '86. Andronikou has a duty to look into this (lol). I'm posting in a hurry but if anyone with more time wants to verify this point and post the relevant statutory extract for the interest of our other esteemed members then just Google "preference insolvency act" and you'll probably find the relevant stuff. In short, I'm saying that a recently registered charge over CSI may well stink. Taken from the Wikipedia page: "An unfair preference (or "voidable preference") is a legal term arising in bankruptcy law where a person or company transfers assets or pays a debt to a creditor shortly before going into bankruptcy, that payment or transfer can be set aside on the application of the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy as an unfair preference or simply a preference.[1] The law on unfair preferences varies from country to country, but characteristically, to set a transaction or payment aside as an unfair preference, the liquidator will need to show that: the person or company was insolvent at the time the payment was made (either on the cash-flow test, or on the balance sheet test - it varies from country to country) the person or company then went into bankruptcy within a specified time thereafter, usually referred to as the vulnerability period[2] the payment had the effect of putting the creditor in a better position than other unsecured creditors in some jurisdictions, it is also necessary to show that the bankrupt intended to grant a preference.[3] In most countries an application to have a transaction set aside as a preference can only be made by the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy (as the person making the payment must be in bankruptcy, and thus they are not normally liable to suits from other creditors). The effect of a successful application to have a transaction declared as an unfair preference varies. Inevitably the creditor which received the payment or assets has to return it to the liquidator. In some countries the assets are treated in the normal way, and may be taken by any secured creditors who have a security interest which catches the assets (characteristically, a floating charge).[4] However, some countries have "ring-fenced" recoveries of unfair preferences so that they are made available to the pool of assets for unsecured creditors. An unfair preference has some of the same characteristics as a fraudulent conveyance,[5] but legally they are separate concepts.[6] There is not normally any requirement to prove an intention to defraud to recover assets under an unfair preference application. However, similar to fraudulent conveyance applications, unfair preferences are often seen in connection with asset protection schemes that are entered into too late by the putative bankrupt. Many jurisdictions provide for an exception in the case of transactions entered into in the ordinary course of business with a view to keeping the company trading, and such transactions are usually either validated or presumed to be validated." At the very least, Portpin's charge against CSI looks like collusion between the two, especially in light of its timing. It's a charge rather than a transaction, but I would imagine the effect to be pretty much the same. The question is - who, if anyone, will apply to have the charge set aside as a preference? According to the Wiki entry I've quoted, this can only be made by the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy (for which I'd read the administrator). Does anybody think that Andronikou is going to challenge Portpin's charge as an unfair preference? No, thought not. If, however, other creditors are able to challenge it, things will look a bit different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 It is a shame that nobody ran a market on Credit Default Swaps on PFC. We could have all made millions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 Amazingly the staff got paid today: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/great-matches/pompey_players_and_staff_are_paid_1_3296504 And when does the PAYE & NI have to be paid to HMRC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 solentsport BBC Radio Solent #pompey Keith Harris of the investment company Seymour Pierce has been charged with finding a new owner for Portsmouth Football Club. Well, that answers some questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 At the very least, Portpin's charge against CSI looks like collusion between the two, especially in light of its timing. It's a charge rather than a transaction, but I would imagine the effect to be pretty much the same. The question is - who, if anyone, will apply to have the charge set aside as a preference? According to the Wiki entry I've quoted, this can only be made by the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy (for which I'd read the administrator). Does anybody think that Andronikou is going to challenge Portpin's charge as an unfair preference? No, thought not. If, however, other creditors are able to challenge it, things will look a bit different. I wouldn't worry about it! It just means that Chainrai will become the [reluctant] 10th owner for his fourth time! Look what happened the last two times he was the owner The guy has a history of doing the wrong thing for PFC and the funniest thing for SFC fans I say let him have it, load up some more debt on it, sell it to another dodgy owner, then watch it all fall apart again! At least we know for certain that while he's in charge, not a penny will be spent! After all he wasn't even bothered about fixing the bogs, and we all know the H&S report was published on his watch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 Well, that answers some questions. Seeing he came up with the last lot.... He'll have trouble finding a deaf, blind and dumb investor who can't hear about the Skates, see the Skates books, or say No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 Seeing he came up with the last lot.... He'll have trouble finding a deaf, blind and dumb investor who can't hear about the Skates, see the Skates books, or say No. No problem - I've found him already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 No problem - I've found him already. Beat me to it In memory of Ken Russell who burnt down the Pier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussexsaint Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 solentsport BBC Radio Solent #pompey Keith Harris of the investment company Seymour Pierce has been charged with finding a new owner for Portsmouth Football Club. 'I wish I could fligh , high up to the Premier League but I can't' 'no you can't, you fetid, dirty, cheating, arrogant, Sh*thole or an excuse for a club...c***' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 God Bless dear old Ken, he used to live down the road from me. A Saints legend (unintentionally) by the Pier episode. Heard on Solent that SOS Pompey have reformed. They must be reading this thread because they've finally caught up about the FSA and Snoras. Oh do keep up Skates... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 At the very least, Portpin's charge against CSI looks like collusion between the two, especially in light of its timing. It's a charge rather than a transaction, but I would imagine the effect to be pretty much the same. The question is - who, if anyone, will apply to have the charge set aside as a preference? According to the Wiki entry I've quoted, this can only be made by the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy (for which I'd read the administrator). Does anybody think that Andronikou is going to challenge Portpin's charge as an unfair preference? No, thought not. If, however, other creditors are able to challenge it, things will look a bit different. What's the betting that the actual number of staff for CSI excluding is subsidiaries is very small and that they are fully up to date on all their tax payments to HMRC to make sure they are not an official creditor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 (edited) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2068282/Portsmouth-administrator-confident-clubs-future.html Andronikou, though, moved yesterday to ease supporters’ fears, saying: ‘This development is not good but the club are in a far better position than they were (last year) because CSI have injected £10.8million. The club are relatively debt free.’ Interesting, nay unusual, use of the term 'relatively' there by AA. No mention that the money was spent on wages and bringing in new signings. If anything the 10.8 million (which may be requested back as previously discussed) has pushed up the amount needed each month to keep the club going without reducing any debt as far as we know. Also no mention of the CVA debt but then you can't expect the person who did all the work on that to remember it can you? Edited 1 December, 2011 by pedg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 meanwhile back at the football creditors hearing I think someone at the BBC needs to do a bit better with their fact checking. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15969818.stm When that happened the club's players and other football creditors were paid in full - to the tune of £30m - while Pompey's other creditors received about 16 pence in the pound. Someone should tell them that the other creditors have received 0 pence in the pound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruffalo Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 I'm no insolvency expert (rather like AA), but the recent debenture / charge looks very dodgy to me: 239 Preferences (England and Wales). (1) This section applies as does section 238. (2) Where the company has at a relevant time (defined in the next section) given a preference to any person, the office-holder may apply to the court for an order under this section. (3) Subject as follows, the court shall, on such an application, make such order as it thinks fit for restoring the position to what it would have been if the company had not given that preference. (4) For the purposes of this section and section 241, a company gives a preference to a person if— (a ) that person is one of the company’s creditors or a surety or guarantor for any of the company’s debts or other liabilities, and (b ) the company does anything or suffers anything to be done which (in either case) has the effect of putting that person into a position which, in the event of the company going into insolvent liquidation, will be better than the position he would have been in if that thing had not been done. (5) The court shall not make an order under this section in respect of a preference given to any person unless the company which gave the preference was influenced in deciding to give it by a desire to produce in relation to that person the effect mentioned in subsection (4)(b ). (6) A company which has given a preference to a person connected with the company (otherwise than by reason only of being its employee) at the time the preference was given is presumed, unless the contrary is shown, to have been influenced in deciding to give it by such a desire as is mentioned in subsection (5). (7) The fact that something has been done in pursuance of the order of a court does not, without more, prevent the doing or suffering of that thing from constituting the giving of a preference. (My bold). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 But, as asked above, who is going to challenge Portpin's charge? Certainly not Android! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 But, as asked above, who is going to challenge Portpin's charge? Certainly not Android! Can't see how the law allows this chicken and egg situation. Someone makes what is possibly an unfair preference on a company just before admin to make sure they get the administrator of their choice in charge who is then supposed to make a decision on whether it is an unfair preference or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toomer Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 Beat me to it In memory of Ken Russell who burnt down the Pier Smoke! I did not ask for smoke!!:lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 (edited) But, as asked above, who is going to challenge Portpin's charge? Certainly not Android! Well, Power Play Golf is endorsed by European Tour, so they will be keeping a watchful eye on proceedings as it was intented as a vehicle to expand the "excitement" of golf in Asia. They had one televised event last year at Celtic Manor and it can be guessed that something else was in the process of being booked and committed to... ET will not want that to go quietly into a long dark Hong Kong night The World Rally Championship is a pretty major event and they may wish to be careful about their TV rights considering that they survive on Corporate Sponsorship And. let's face it, in the face of a "Theft" (as quoted elsewhere) of US$1.3 BILLION, does anyone REALLY think that Chinny's last minute document would stand up to scrutiny in European Courts? Hmm in the light of that there could be a possible argument that AA's appointment itsaelf could get contested by those chasing the asset freezing train. AA is not popular in his industry and we may enjoy a forthcoming AA vs Interpol battle. Somehow I don't think the General Public of the Baltics would settle for a never to be paid 25%, AND he won't have the chance to play the inflate creditors with football Debts trick when it comes to voting for a CVA May be wrong but it will be fun to watch Again Edited 1 December, 2011 by dubai_phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 Other creditors could presumably challenge the charge, but how many other creditors does CSI have? How much do they owe? The other businesses it's listed as owning will be legal entities in their own right (or in the case of PFC, illegal entities) so who does CSI owe money to? On whose behalf is AA working?OK, we know the answer to the last one. I'll rephrase - on whose behalf is AA pretending to work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 Found this whilst at work yesterday (so couldn't post it at the time). It's a solicitors blog on the legal challenge to the football creditors rule and the interesting bit that I've quoted below relates to what evidence was given to a Culture, Media & Sport Committee looking at the issue... http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2011/november/courts-to-decide-on-legality-of-football-creditors-rule-this-week/ The Committee received evidence that when Portsmouth FC became the first Premier League club to enter administration last year its players and other football creditors were paid in full in the region of £30 million, while other creditors received approximately 16 pence in the pound, it said. Note the use of the word 'received' - past tense. So who told the MP's that Pompey had paid 16p in the pound to other creditors when in reality they've received nothing so far? Has someone been telling porkies to a select committee? If so, I believe that is also against the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 I wish you lot would stop saying Pompey were toast. You fail miserably everytime as Chanrai and AA are always 3 or 4steps ahead of you. The sign when i believe they are really in the mire is if Lampit resigns ,as he will not wish to lose total credibility. How Chanrai can just put the company on a mortgage a day before they go into admin is a farce but yet again with Pompey the rules always seem to there to be bent. Pompey yet again seem to have got away with it, and whilst my sympathy goes to Mero, Mack etc I wont miss the rivalry as it isnt that important to me in respect of seeing my team win. They have shown no shame recognition or concern about their success due to the cheating, so let them take their FA cup win and then spiral into the abyss. Sadly the FA FL etc have no balls and their concern in keeping the integrity of the league will mean they will do their darnedest to let them live Pompey toast......not a hope in hell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brightspark Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 I wish you lot would stop saying Pompey were toast. You fail miserably everytime as Chanrai and AA are always 3 or 4steps ahead of you. The sign when i believe they are really in the mire is if Lampit resigns ,as he will not wish to lose total credibility. How Chanrai can just put the company on a mortgage a day before they go into admin is a farce but yet again with Pompey the rules always seem to there to be bent. Pompey yet again seem to have got away with it, and whilst my sympathy goes to Mero, Mack etc I wont miss the rivalry as it isnt that important to me in respect of seeing my team win. They have shown no shame recognition or concern about their success due to the cheating, so let them take their FA cup win and then spiral into the abyss. Sadly the FA FL etc have no balls and their concern in keeping the integrity of the league will mean they will do their darnedest to let them live Pompey toast......not a hope in hell This. Nobody wants to be the person who kills Portsmouth FC. They would probably receive threats of the nasty kind from the unaware football community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 Have to agree with Old NIck on this one. You know what its like, the media and football world shed tears for clubs that look like they are going out of business, even if entirely of tehir own making - as Corpse used to say,' in 20 od years time no one will care HOW pompey won the cup, it will just show theiir name in the record books blah blah... ' and that is sadly true. The league will not want to withdraw any share. and the sickly slime ball AA will know exactly what he can get away with - already using the media to stoke up the 'we wont get a points deduction' even though he can not possibly state this yet... which means i suspect he has the appropriate loop holes identified already...? The fact that teh sysytem allows a club, that have been in admin with debts of 120 mil, who have paid 30mil from advanced parachute payments to cover teh football debts, who have yet to provide the 20% of 20% owed in the first year to all over creditors as part of teh CVA to receive 10.8mil form CSI to fund their transfers and wages to remain competitive whilst creditors wait - is for me the crux - forget all the dodgy financials, owners and mortgages etc, How teh feck can this be allowed? As there is simply no argument that this is in effect an unfair competive advanatge (again) whilst they have outstanding creditors waiting for their money. Had teh creditors known all this, would they have voted for the CVA? would not Pompey thus still not be in admin? Seriously, throughout this whole saga, its not the dodgy owners that have have ****ed me off, that is sadly not the fans fault, but the inability of the FL to properly oversee the finances. If there was 10 mil comming it should have gone straight to creditoes...cant afford teh squad? well tough ****, sell the players and play with kids even if it means relegation... and yes I do claim the moral high ground on that one as we did it (whatever else Lowe was he at least had some sense of ethics, even if only to save the shareholder value).... but no the FL let them spend it on a squad they cant afford AGAIN and the fans show no contrition, no sense of moral outrage at the spending either the second... They will undoubtedly survive somehow, given the ineptitude and cowardice of the FL in policing their own. I just want 1 pompey fan to at least recognise that they cheated first time, and they have been cheating again and be feckin angry about THAT, not the dodgy owners that they have no control over. Somehow I doubt i will find one, as as for the football league, they should hang their heads in shame for letting this go on...and on..and on, not once, but twice.... inept, pathetic, cowardly and obsessed by self interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 'I wish I could fligh , high up to the Premier League but I can't' 'no you can't, you fetid, dirty, cheating, arrogant, Sh*thole or an excuse for a club...c***' I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking along these lines when I saw Keith Harris mentioned!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 Created on the 22nd, Registered on the 24th, CSI go into admin days later. Obviously nothing fishy or smelly there.. ..edit.. I believe they CSI was put into admin on the 25th but it did not come out for a while so that makes it the day after this was registered? ..edit.. Yep definitely the 25th so the day after the charge was registered. "On the 25th of November 2011 my partner at UHY Hacker Young Andrew Andronikou and I were appointed as Joint Administrators to Convers Sports Initiative plc (CSI)," The key date to compare it to would be when the European Arrest Warrant was issued, IMO... Also, the delusion here is incredible: http://fansonline.net/pompey-fans/article.php?id=385 Wah, it's all the Football League's fault, and as compensation they should give us an interest-free loan to help us out of the situation we've landed ourselves in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 Have to agree with Old NIck on this one. You know what its like, the media and football world shed tears for clubs that look like they are going out of business, even if entirely of tehir own making - as Corpse used to say,' in 20 od years time no one will care HOW pompey won the cup, it will just show theiir name in the record books blah blah... ' and that is sadly true. The league will not want to withdraw any share. and the sickly slime ball AA will know exactly what he can get away with - already using the media to stoke up the 'we wont get a points deduction' even though he can not possibly state this yet... which means i suspect he has the appropriate loop holes identified already...? The fact that teh sysytem allows a club, that have been in admin with debts of 120 mil, who have paid 30mil from advanced parachute payments to cover teh football debts, who have yet to provide the 20% of 20% owed in the first year to all over creditors as part of teh CVA to receive 10.8mil form CSI to fund their transfers and wages to remain competitive whilst creditors wait - is for me the crux - forget all the dodgy financials, owners and mortgages etc, How teh feck can this be allowed? As there is simply no argument that this is in effect an unfair competive advanatge (again) whilst they have outstanding creditors waiting for their money. Had teh creditors known all this, would they have voted for the CVA? would not Pompey thus still not be in admin? Seriously, throughout this whole saga, its not the dodgy owners that have have ****ed me off, that is sadly not the fans fault, but the inability of the FL to properly oversee the finances. If there was 10 mil comming it should have gone straight to creditoes...cant afford teh squad? well tough ****, sell the players and play with kids even if it means relegation... and yes I do claim the moral high ground on that one as we did it (whatever else Lowe was he at least had some sense of ethics, even if only to save the shareholder value).... but no the FL let them spend it on a squad they cant afford AGAIN and the fans show no contrition, no sense of moral outrage at the spending either the second... They will undoubtedly survive somehow, given the ineptitude and cowardice of the FL in policing their own. I just want 1 pompey fan to at least recognise that they cheated first time, and they have been cheating again and be feckin angry about THAT, not the dodgy owners that they have no control over. Somehow I doubt i will find one, as as for the football league, they should hang their heads in shame for letting this go on...and on..and on, not once, but twice.... inept, pathetic, cowardly and obsessed by self interest. Pretty much take on it. Of course they're going to struggle, but as we've seen before, they're masters at finding the appropriate loop holes and gaining undeserved sympathy from the footballing world. Forget what may or may not be going on in the background, they've still got one of the highest paid first XI's in the league, capable of giving most team's a game on their day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 1 December, 2011 Share Posted 1 December, 2011 Well I've just voted that article worthy of 1 star.I'm not going suggest others should do the same, but if they should wish to, the voting option is right at the bottom of the page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts