Jump to content

Recommended Posts

ched post 19 Great post ..That is why yesterday I said the council should be prepared to take responsibility and put a deal together with Chanrai .. buy the club back for the people, using the taxpayer's in the PO postcode as the revenue stream (no chance of a default to Chanrai!) .. a one off 'investment tax' of £100 entitles you to become a lifelong shareholder .. as an individual, household, or business .. as many sources of £100's as possible. Do this 200,000 times over whatever timescale it takes, and you have £20million in the coffers .. not forgetting the normal revenue sources for the football club. Granted, It would require a damn fine PR campaign and clarity on future management structure at board level. I think you would need a number of fans to represent the shareholders voice, perhaps as a shareholder you are allocated a representative by your location to FP such as north,south,east and west) .. Of course ultimately the club will be run to make a shared profit between the council and football club and live within it's means. It's a no brainer to me as a low risk investment for the council if the money does not come directly from their budget..PO Power!!

 

Good idea skates!!! Lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the PO postcode covers even parts of the West Wight, which is full of Saints fans (including me!) I hardly think that a mandatory whip round to fund a bunch

of crooks is vote winning brainwave !!

I've come across thick Skates in my time but this one should be up for an award all of it's own :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

All this new 'Skatery pokery' is getting complicated again so I think it's about time that Corporate Ho should reappear and contribute his insightful, thought provoking view of the situation ??

Without his side of the debate we will be left to conclude that CSI, Antonov, Snoras, Dubov, Andronikou, Chanrai, Lampitt et al.. are all a bunch of low life crooks

and that really wouldn't be fair, would it now ????

Link to post
Share on other sites

"If I set up a page on " Just giving " I wonder how many fans, and not just Pompey fans would donate, £1, £10, £100 irrelevant really we'd just need numbers. The turnstile reciepts would pay for the CVA and the "Just Giving" would pay the wages. 3500 donations at £35 would give us £122,500, would keep the wages going and a contribution from the players would help. What do we reckon, take this into our hands?"

 

Our fishy friends just don't get it, if they all donate all their hard earned cash they could could pay TBH's wages for a month. PMSL. The turnstile receipts wouldn't pay the the C in CVA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL. Does a thread about Pompey's proposed takeover that reaches three pages in a couple of hours once again demonstrate just how little you care about Pompey? :D FWIW, while the deal could still fall apart I was told yesterday by someone who's actually involved in the takeover that whilst there were still a few issues to sort out it's still very much on. Time will tell I guess, but I wouldn't laugh too loudly too soon if I were you. I'm not party to the whole thing but if the rumour about where the money's coming from (and how much of it there is ready to be used on players and improving the club) are true you lot are going to be pig sick.

 

 

 

Err, I think you'll find that Pompey's position is built on loans from banks rather than any money from Gaydamak. Britain's position in the world however is more than partly built on arms dealing. If you really find arms dealing that distasteful and want to assume a moral high ground I suggest you emigrate.

 

 

 

I assume you're talking about Hydra Properties here. Rather than being "sacked" Al Fahim is no longer CEO of Hydra but is still a main board director of the company. As for raising the money from Abu Dhabi, that's not where it's rumoured to be coming from. Try Germany.

 

Just in case anyone missed Corp Ho's first ever post on this thread (page 3), I wonder why he hasn't posted this last week?

Link to post
Share on other sites
"If I set up a page on " Just giving " I wonder how many fans, and not just Pompey fans would donate, £1, £10, £100 irrelevant really we'd just need numbers. The turnstile reciepts would pay for the CVA and the "Just Giving" would pay the wages. 3500 donations at £35 would give us £122,500, would keep the wages going and a contribution from the players would help. What do we reckon, take this into our hands?"

 

Our fishy friends just don't get it, if they all donate all their hard earned cash they could could pay TBH's wages for a month. PMSL. The turnstile receipts wouldn't pay the the C in CVA.

 

By coincidence I believe pompey have their own website, called "Just Taking"

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
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 by pedg
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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:

 

  1. 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)
  2. the person or company then went into bankruptcy within a specified time thereafter, usually referred to as the vulnerability period[2]
  3. the payment had the effect of putting the creditor in a better position than other unsecured creditors
  4. 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 post
Share on other sites

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 :D

 

The guy has a history of doing the wrong thing for PFC and the funniest thing for SFC fans :D

 

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 post
Share on other sites

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.

 

keith-orville.jpg

 

'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 post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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