Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guys FFS keep up. I was telling you lot about what the IP industry thought about AA the FIRST time around.

 

My favourite line was "If only IP was like football then AA could have been banned for bringing the game into disrepute YEARS ago".

 

This IS important in the tale of their demise, and their (and CSI's) current mess simply for the way he has been appointed AGAIN.

 

Dodgy Keeper doesn't cover it, he makes Bart's performance last Saturday look like Gordon Banks v Brazil his re-appointment SHOULD have sent alarm bells ringing in many investigative offices

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys FFS keep up. I was telling you lot about what the IP industry thought about AA the FIRST time around.

 

My favourite line was "If only IP was like football then AA could have been banned for bringing the game into disrepute YEARS ago".

 

This IS important in the tale of their demise, and their (and CSI's) current mess simply for the way he has been appointed AGAIN.

 

Dodgy Keeper doesn't cover it, he makes Bart's performance last Saturday look like Gordon Banks v Brazil his re-appointment SHOULD have sent alarm bells ringing in many investigative offices

 

But WHICH 'investigative offices'? That's the point...there doesn't seem to be anyone in authority in the slightest bit interested about alleged malpractice in this murky industry.

 

The police? Nope. The government? Nope? An independent regulator? Nope. Rosemary the telephone operator? Hmmm, could be....

Link to post
Share on other sites
But WHICH 'investigative offices'? That's the point...there doesn't seem to be anyone in authority in the slightest bit interested about alleged malpractice in this murky industry.

 

The police? Nope. The government? Nope? An independent regulator? Nope. Rosemary the telephone operator? Hmmm, could be....

 

Some people who think AA is a blight on their industry? :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
....Whoops, clumsy rallyboy with his big sausage fingers pressing the wrong button - added a bit of dramatic effect though....for no reason!

And then found he had hit his three in 24 hours, hence the pointless delay...so as I was saying -

 

 

When pushed I thought this adminstrator I met today might be going to tell me that AA is highly respected, but no, far from it.

AA is as popular in the trade as he is on here, this bloke was scathing about him.

And this expert was also astonished that the court didn't put the poor club down when they had the chance - he said the inflated debt gag was the oldest in the book, doesn't know how the taxman let them get away with it.

 

So as we thought really, but now with the support of experts.

 

All quiet on the pitch, other than the News rallying the troops by shouting out the fact that the woeful Lawrence looks set for a recall at the weekend, right up there with us getting excited if Davis isn't fit.

And of course 3-4,000 of the home fans will be wondering where David James and Harry Redknapp are.

If you want to fill a ground you need a big club to come down.

 

Also I believe that the few's local paper may be running something very soon about the dodgy state of the CVA and small creditors - and how a £1M plus needs to be plucked out of the air from somewhere a bit sharpish.

 

Hopeflully, if they do a proper forensic investigation into pompey they can get him as well.

How long does one of these take anyway,

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it wasn't for Norris Pompey would be hovering around the relegation zone right now. TBF he's been massive for them this season, he keeps popping up with crucial goals that keep the relegation zone at arm's length. One injury to him and they will be struggling.

 

As for AA, he's taken on the taxman and won. He sure has the world of football worked out and where football clubs stand with the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As per that earlier article posted.....

 

 

....what is stopping AA from simply "re-structuring" the CVA, thus extending the "deadline(s)"....?

 

The club couldn’t pay off that debt AND its taxes. And some years before it became de rigueur in football league circles, Swindon were regular day-trippers to London’s High Court to face winding-up petitions from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

 

Sir Seton Wills facilitated the dismissal of HMRC’s first petition – for £600,000 in overlooked VAT – via a loan from property company St Modwen. But it was Willis who gained Andronikou’s plaudits, especially for injecting “£3m to keep the club out of trouble and £3m to keep me going”. The £900,000 was beyond even Wills, though, let alone Swindon, who defaulted on the 2006 instalment and, late that year, were negotiating furiously with Andronikou over what it euphemistically termed “restructuring” the CVA.

In previous seasons, Andronikou had allowed the club extended payment deadlines, taking what he termed a “commercial” view of the situation. Giving the club an extra month to meet its 2003 obligations, for example, he decided that: “It is in the best interests of the creditors to allow the company until August 1st to forward the money to me.”

So here was the man appointed to look after creditors’ interests telling said creditors what those interests were. He was to be even more presumptuous in 2007, declaring that he had the power to “extend and vary” the CVA deadline – suggesting it be put back a year. Or, as he modestly out it: “I have the discretion to do what I think is right for everyone. That is where it starts and ends really.”

In May he claimed: “I have information in my hands that the club are close to agreeing a deal to secure the long-term future (and) the CVA.”

 

A “fans’ consortium” backed by former Robins’ investor Bill Power had emerged the previous autumn but were still waiting to sign a “non-disclosure” agreement to allow them to even begin talks. And yet Andronikou was publicly “championing the cause” of new ‘mystery’ investor(s). Understandably, fans’ consortium members had a view on this. Consortium “leader” Mike Wilks was willing to “concede defeat” if Andronikou’s new love was the real deal, while warning: “The accounts show this club is effectively bankrupt. This mystery investor will need pretty deep pockets.”

 

So far, so reasonable. Then Wilks questioned Andronikou, claiming to be “baffled” by “why the club feels it is in such a strong position” and by “the timing of the CVA, because it states in black-and-white that the last payment is due in June. How does Mr Andronikou figure there is another year to pay it?”

 

Still so far, so reasonable. Andronikou’s response…wasn’t. “No matter what some people say, as long as I think it is in the interests of everyone to extend the deadline then I can,” he repeated, still not revealing the source of these magical powers. “It will not be long, a few weeks maybe, before this club gets some really positive news. The 20 or 30 busybodies can then find something else to do.”

 

That, as they say, tore it. Fans and creditors’, concerns were far more widespread than that. The Trust demanded an apology for the busybody slur. And chairman Paul Davis noted that “Mr Andronikou seems to be saying ‘I am the supervisor, I am God,’ (Andronikou, you suspect, would not have balked at the description) while attacking the customers of the business. It seems a bizarre way to go about things.”

 

Swindon’s Borough Council were among the creditors. And as the CVA deadline approached, they stressed that they were expecting their “substantial debt” at the agreed time. Finance committee member Nick Martin noted: “We are not looking to re-engage or review the creditors’ agreement.”

 

These storms may have become a footnote in the club’s history if the mystery new investors had delivered. But information on, and progress towards, a deal was minimal. The deadline had already passed before “dynamic” changes to the club’s board were trailed. They, and millions of anonymously-sourced pounds, would “disperse forever the dark financial clouds” hanging over the club. But it was August before any details were to emerge of “Portuguese investment company” Best Holdings.

 

Given the new circumstances, Andronikou urged creditors to “defer” CVA payments for up to another year – so much for his powers to extend and vary deadlines. But given the continuing lack of detail, Andronikou had to announce that creditors voted “strongly in favour” of calling a meeting to discuss “varying the CVA.”

 

Yet, two lines later, he claimed: “I have to decide over the next few days whether we have to hold one…because it looks as though things will be resolved next week.” His disregard for creditors’ wishes was overshadowed by news that Best Holdings signed a contract on August 14th to take full control of Swindon. Buoyed by this seeming vindication, Andronikou went back on the attack.

It seemed to matter not that he didn’t “know too much about” Best Holdings. They were “forwarding me the money, (so) a creditors’ meeting is no longer needed.” And he insisted that “It’s a complicated matter and I think everyone should just leave it,” before revealing that creditors were owed £8m rather than the £5m.

Edited by trousers
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, the £16.5m is in respect of the CVA only.

 

Any secured debts (ie Gaydamak) are in addition, on top of and as well as, the CVA.. :)

 

April 2012 is the date the first scheduled payment of the CVA is due (7.5% of £16.5m = £1.24m).

 

As far as I recall, secured creditors were supposed to be reimbursed directly from parachute payments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Antonov could of at least mislaid the money into Pompey's bank account, he didn't even get that right.

 

CSI didn't steal any money from their banks... a director of CSI, Mr V Antanov, may have mislaid some money in one of his banks, but even that is not proven yet

 

Still cannot understand why CSI didn't pay off all of our debts with the money thay supposedly stole from their own banks

 

 

 

Guess where these quotes are from ....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Antonov could of at least mislaid the money into Pompey's bank account, he didn't even get that right.

 

CSI didn't steal any money from their banks... a director of CSI, Mr V Antanov, may have mislaid some money in one of his banks, but even that is not proven yet

 

Still cannot understand why CSI didn't pay off all of our debts with the money thay supposedly stole from their own banks

 

 

 

Guess where these quotes are from ....

 

 

I would love them to be attributed to Storrie-Ho ! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
You were paying ridiculous wages (and bonuses no doubt) on an average attendance of less than 20k. It was NEVER sustainable regardless of the TV income.

 

Can somebody tell me if TV money really was £51million a season in 2007. I can't remember but it seems a huge amount to me. (I'm not accepting Ho's word for it.)

 

Once again Ho is talking complete bollix!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/7903417.stm

 

 

 

So, unless they finished higher than Man Utd - not possible! - then they did not earn £51m in tv revenue!

 

Another one claims the average to be £28m per club....

 

We could of course solve all the arguments by looking at the accounts, oh, but yeah, they didn't bother to file any did they ;)

 

Thanks for that. I really don't have the time or the stamina to keep countering his trollish revisionism. You know some 'fact' is wrong but it is an old troll's trick to dress up made-up numbers as detailed statistics to baffle us lesser motals.

 

This £70 mil that ho keeps banging on about, could that figure have been fed to Conn based on fishy accounting? Storrie magicing up some figures to make it look like everything is ok? Or we're any proper accounts filed around that time to confirm there was £70 mil income that year?

 

The way ho tells it I find it really hard to understand how they lost so much when they were making more than losing. :rolleyes:

 

OK Girls. I'm going to take this very slowly so even you 'tards might be able to understand something written in basic English.

 

These aren't figures I've made up. These are figures taken from the article David Conn wrote in The Guardian abou finances in the PL which I posted a link to in my post a couple of pages back (and again before that and probably yet again befor that one). I've posted it yet, yet again here for you to look at and try and understand that these aren't numbers I've made up and Conn states in the article that they are the accounts submitted to companies house up to 31st May 2008. Got that now? I know it's not as if Conn is a professional journalist who's used to stating official statistics and reports in articles like you genius' on here but let's go with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt

 

Accounts for the year to 31 May 2008

Turnover £70.5m (up from £40.2m the previous year, an increase of 75%)

Gate and Matchday £12m

TV and Broadcasting £51.2m

Sponsorship £4m

Retail £3.3m

Wage bill £54.7m (up from £36.9m the previous year, an increase of 48.2%)

Wages as proportion of turnover 78%

Loss before tax £17m

Debts £57.7m

Interest payable £6.6m

 

OK, go that? They're not figures I made up. They're the ones David Conn stated in his article.

 

Now, that spending may not have been sustainable long term but all the time we were getting the PL money the fact that we only had gates of 20K didn't mean that much. Clubs like Bolton, Boro, Blackburn etc had bigger grounds but had less income through gate receipts, partly because of our cup run but also because our ST prices were a lot higher. it's about the cost of the ticket, not just the numbers into the ground. So whilst that spending may not have been sustainable long term it was fine that year and the wages to turnover figure and debt level was in line with many other PL clubs. Take into account the money we pulled in from transfers of Diarra, Defoe, muntari etc and the wages to turnover ration and debt levels should have been easily managed down to sustainable levels even with replacement signings made.

 

I await the next round of yeah but no but yeah but no commnts with baited breath

Link to post
Share on other sites

But Mr Lampitt disputes it is the club’s sole liability to pay small creditors in full.

 

We were unaware of the fact that the liquidators were sending out correspondences to creditors but we take issue to the liability for 100 per cent payment with creditors owed less than £2,500.’

 

‘They are still due to receive their full payment of their debt.

 

‘There is no time scale for full payment but the sooner the dispute is resolved over how the payments are made and who by the better for all concerned.

 

So- are they now saying anyone who is owed under £2,500 wont be getting 100% repayment now - seems like the goal posts are moving again - I wonder how many people were owed under £2,500 - mind you one players wages at £20,000 a week would have cleared 32 payments per month - still much nicer to get another guy in on 20 grand a week rather than pay your local tradespeople -

Link to post
Share on other sites
I await the next round of yeah but no but yeah but no commnts with baited breath

 

It's bated breath, fyi.

 

As for your accounts, they were probably largely a work of fiction, rather like those conjured up by your bent Administrator. After all, you have had people in charge of your finances who are convicted fraudsters and you have been owned by people who don't seem to exist, or who are currently under investigation for fraud and money laundering, or who made their money in illegal arms sales, etc. So just because a journo quotes figures from your accounts, that doesn't necessarily mean that those figures are accurate. Have you never heard of "creative accounting"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

faimlyguy-xmas1.jpg

 

That must be sobering reading for the blue few... all that bravado about parachute ringfencing, everyone forgot most of that is long gone! I cant see a fire sale working, too many lucrative contracts - Storrie, Lampitt and Cotteril are all heros in my eyes

 

They still have Hayden Mullins stuck on the books FFS! Remember Storries fantasy squad valuation he handed the judge, £38m!!! They raised about £10m IIRC and the rest strangle the club every day... They will not make any money in transfers, they might be able to give their players away or loan them out to rival clubs like we did, otherwise they are looking at watching them slowly bleed thier gold plated contacts dry.

 

As I understand it, the £16.5m is in respect of the CVA only.

 

Any secured debts (ie Gaydamak) are in addition, on top of and as well as, the CVA.. :)

 

April 2012 is the date the first scheduled payment of the CVA is due (7.5% of £16.5m = £1.24m).

 

As far as I recall, secured creditors were supposed to be reimbursed directly from parachute payments.

 

Yes absolutely, but in football you have the bonkers football creditors rule where 'football' creditors are elevated above secured creditors and get ringfenced, preferential treatment... HMRC are currently testing this rule in the high courts and citing pompey as the perfect illustration of intentionally blowing off the UK public and revenue and customs.

 

So you have:

 

Football creditors - Preferential treatment and paid 100% out of the parachute payments

Secured creditors and lenders (Gadymack £5m, Chainrai £17-20m) - the remains of the parachutes and first dibs on CVA payments

Unsecured creditors - whatever they argreed to/conned in to = 20p in the £1 (less AA expenses) over a period of 5 years

 

I can only assume that Antonov has his £10.5m secured against the club, although no idea what security there could possibly be left... with Gaddy and Chinny they must be mortgaged 3x over already on questionable security.

 

In a nutshell, they have to find millions and millions of hard cash just to get through this mess, let alone paying the most expensive XI in the country and carrying out essential repairs to the arena just to get through next years elf and safety certification

 

No idea where this £40-50m is going to come from, I wonder if Lampitts many 'expressions of interest' have £50m to blow on a crumbling stadium without its own car park or offices.

 

Antonov could of at least mislaid the money into Pompey's bank account, he didn't even get that right.

 

CSI didn't steal any money from their banks... a director of CSI, Mr V Antanov, may have mislaid some money in one of his banks, but even that is not proven yet

 

Still cannot understand why CSI didn't pay off all of our debts with the money thay supposedly stole from their own banks

 

 

 

Guess where these quotes are from ....

 

Morally corrupt and morally bankrupt supporters and owners - they deserve each other...

 

But Mr Lampitt disputes it is the club’s sole liability to pay small creditors in full.

 

We were unaware of the fact that the liquidators were sending out correspondences to creditors but we take issue to the liability for 100 per cent payment with creditors owed less than £2,500.’

 

‘They are still due to receive their full payment of their debt.

 

‘There is no time scale for full payment but the sooner the dispute is resolved over how the payments are made and who by the better for all concerned.

 

So- are they now saying anyone who is owed under £2,500 wont be getting 100% repayment now - seems like the goal posts are moving again - I wonder how many people were owed under £2,500 - mind you one players wages at £20,000 a week would have cleared 32 payments per month - still much nicer to get another guy in on 20 grand a week rather than pay your local tradespeople -

 

This is where the supporters should be most ashamed as this is what they wanted, if they cared about integrity and self respect, let alone showing any moral duty of care to those local businesses and charities of the local community - they would have made sure there football club acted the right way and made sure those organisations are ok.

 

And FFS Lampitt taking issue re 2.5k creditors, shame on you... just pay the bloody charities you scumbag, for the FA Head of Integrity you are doing a fine job as dressing yourself up as the loan sharks and money laundering gangsters you so regularly trumpet as 'the real deal'

 

What a nasty, stinking pit of a football club... one step closer to Moneyfields IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK Girls. I'm going to take this very slowly so even you 'tards might be able to understand something written in basic English.

 

These aren't figures I've made up. These are figures taken from the article David Conn wrote in The Guardian abou finances in the PL which I posted a link to in my post a couple of pages back (and again before that and probably yet again befor that one). I've posted it yet, yet again here for you to look at and try and understand that these aren't numbers I've made up and Conn states in the article that they are the accounts submitted to companies house up to 31st May 2008. Got that now? I know it's not as if Conn is a professional journalist who's used to stating official statistics and reports in articles like you genius' on here but let's go with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt

 

Accounts for the year to 31 May 2008

Turnover £70.5m (up from £40.2m the previous year, an increase of 75%)

Gate and Matchday £12m

TV and Broadcasting £51.2m

Sponsorship £4m

Retail £3.3m

Wage bill £54.7m (up from £36.9m the previous year, an increase of 48.2%)

Wages as proportion of turnover 78%

Loss before tax £17m

Debts £57.7m

Interest payable £6.6m

 

OK, go that? They're not figures I made up. They're the ones David Conn stated in his article.

 

Now, that spending may not have been sustainable long term but all the time we were getting the PL money the fact that we only had gates of 20K didn't mean that much. Clubs like Bolton, Boro, Blackburn etc had bigger grounds but had less income through gate receipts, partly because of our cup run but also because our ST prices were a lot higher. it's about the cost of the ticket, not just the numbers into the ground. So whilst that spending may not have been sustainable long term it was fine that year and the wages to turnover figure and debt level was in line with many other PL clubs. Take into account the money we pulled in from transfers of Diarra, Defoe, muntari etc and the wages to turnover ration and debt levels should have been easily managed down to sustainable levels even with replacement signings made.

 

I await the next round of yeah but no but yeah but no commnts with baited breath

 

Within less than 2 years you went under owing £130 million !

The conclusion has to be that the figures you choose to believe are total bollards, if not please give us a breakdown of how you managed to lose so much more in that period after May 2008

???

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it is not PFC's responsibility to pay small creditors100%. That promise was from BC.

 

It would be illegal to pay the creditors out of sequence from the funds of PFC old co.

Employees

Secured creditors

Unsecured creditors

It would be illegal to pay some creditors a higher percentage than others in the same group. ( from PFC old co)

 

I thing all the funds to pay creditors was comming from the sales of players and the parachute payments. I don't think PFC 2010 are liable for these debts

 

Your thoughts gents?

Link to post
Share on other sites

From UHY's Completion Report - http://tinyurl.com/cex7aen

 

'..PFC10 is obligated to make a contribution to the Liquidation which ensures a dividend of 20 pence in the pound, before costs and expenses, is paid to all unsecured creditors. I have detailed below the dates and quantum of the contributions due.

 

Please note that the percentages are that of 20 pence in the pound:

 

Contributions due:

 

15% of 20% of the unsecured creditors’ claims agreed in equal installments on 1 April 2012 and 15 August 2012

25% of 20% of the unsecured creditors’ claims agreed in equal installments on 1 April 2013 and 1 September 2013

30% of 20% of the unsecured creditors’ claims agreed on 1 April 2014

 

The balancing figure required in order to comply fully with the CVA proposal document approved by creditors on 6 May 2010 is due by 17 June 2015.'

 

Spring 2012 is going to be a very interesting time..

Link to post
Share on other sites
From UHY's Completion Report - http://tinyurl.com/cex7aen

 

'..PFC10 is obligated to make a contribution to the Liquidation which ensures a dividend of 20 pence in the pound, before costs and expenses, is paid to all unsecured creditors. I have detailed below the dates and quantum of the contributions due.

 

Please note that the percentages are that of 20 pence in the pound:

 

Contributions due:

 

15% of 20% of the unsecured creditors’ claims agreed in equal installments on 1 April 2012 and 15 August 2012

25% of 20% of the unsecured creditors’ claims agreed in equal installments on 1 April 2013 and 1 September 2013

30% of 20% of the unsecured creditors’ claims agreed on 1 April 2014

 

The balancing figure required in order to comply fully with the CVA proposal document approved by creditors on 6 May 2010 is due by 17 June 2015.'

 

Spring 2012 is going to be a very interesting time..

 

Its going to be a fantastic spring.

 

CSIs administrator AA and PFCs CEO have both stated they have nothing other than short term cash to see them through. AA was on the Solent after Saints v. Hull and he stated over the airwaves that Pompey had six weeks of cash left before they were flat broke, so they only have three odd weeks now to save themselves - so far the only solution is for the fans to underwrite TBHs wages - PMSL

 

I estimate they need an additional £12m to burn through next year, just to see through the debt obligations and pay the crazy wages, and subsidise the pathetic attendences which are miles under breakeven.

 

3ed7316f_Sinking_Ship.jpeg

 

another day and another step forwards towards salvation at Moneyfields

Link to post
Share on other sites
Accounts for the year to 31 May 2008

Turnover £70.5m (up from £40.2m the previous year, an increase of 75%)

Gate and Matchday £12m

TV and Broadcasting £51.2m

Sponsorship £4m

Retail £3.3m

Wage bill £54.7m (up from £36.9m the previous year, an increase of 48.2%)

Wages as proportion of turnover 78%

Loss before tax £17m

Debts £57.7m

Interest payable £6.6m

 

 

 

Ok I'll bite - lets assume these figures are correct - Just be be clear for a moment:

 

You had existing debts of 57mil by April 2008 - you had a wage bill of 54mil up from 38mil in 2007. You made a loss of 17mil to year end of 2008. Now what is not shown in your summary is the operating costs but its clear that that whatever they were at the time you were operating at a loss of 17 mil as of April 2008 on top of debts of 57 mil - primarily contributed to by that rediculous and stupidly sized wage bill -

 

Now IF Gaydarmark had given cast iron assurances that that a) he would pprovide funds to address the 54 mil of debt AND gift teh club another 17 mil a year - then you could say that you were indeed operating as say Chelski etc... however, you can not tell me that Gaydamrk ever had that kind of money (afterall you stated elsewhere that he was borrowing it from a bank and your problems were started by this being called in - so even if he was contributing a huge amount to sustain your clu, it was not actually HIS money he was using to do this but another Banks eg more loans...more debt, just his name against it rather than yours ) - how much was he injecting into Pompey each year to underwrite teh business plan... by teh looks of those debts FEck all - so you were borrowing with NO guarrantees of being able to sustain ithe contracts you were writing out for players - and had been for some time.

 

Now fast fowrad and that debt grew to 120 mil give or take a few quid... now ny REASONABLE board would ahve looked at teh situation in April 2008 and gone 'fec', unless we do something drastic we are fecked, we are trdaing insolvently... this is illegal... but not. Instead of selling everything and getting the books to balance so you can pay off said debt.... yes Pompey kept on spending - it matters not if you sold a few players, because with such larch contracts you may even have had to lose money to get rid of some of them which probably contributed to the ****e anyway - but as I recall you still had several nice big wage earners on the books... you see this is what WE DO GET and you don’t - you were in a feckin big whole and just kept on digging - a hole created by the simple fact that you felt totally justified in spending big, like Billy big boots and all the other prem clubs blah blah, but without any guarantees or appropriate plan in place for how this would be underwritten... which is the cheating bit we refer to on here, but you simply don’t get.

 

The second point that is interesting has been touched upon... in your current hideous state, it has been mentioned that CSI were injecting 8.5 mil or so a year (on average) into the club. Now as this is 'free money' SURELY any reasonable approach would have been to use this to pay off creditors straight away, reduce the CVA and assured creditor debt burden to remove the various ownership issues and complex equity stakes so that you were able to be start again from scratch sooner rather than later. ..BUT NO, pompey aren’t reasonable - they used that to support a squad again well beyond their means to avoid relegation - competitive advantage this time at based on money from CSI who as we have seen are run by folks perhaps not really totally trustworthy - so you get into debt this time with CSI - and once again enter player contracts that would not be sustainable if it were not for money that CSI pump in, money that should really be given to creditors FIRST rather than supporting a squad beyond you means by 8 mil a year in the NPC.... a squad which we now see is beyond your means by the tune of 8 mil a year...and paid for by loans from CSI (they want it back LOL) so borrowing heavily, whilst owing on the CVA ..... Jeez you could not make it up.

 

The only reason you are still in existence is because of the FL and FA not having the balls to sort this out... and your lot are protesting against them... would make me laugh if it was not so pathetically corrupt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm

 

It occurs to me.

 

Now, IF you want to buy a football club, the VERY first thing that you have to do is to show that you are serious by providing PROOF of Funds.

 

Now that is an interesting word, PROOF.

 

So the SELLER of PCFC2010 must have been given PROOF that the funds exist.

 

And yet now we have seen that those funds did NOT exist, in fact looks like they belonged to Normal Working People in the Baltics.

 

So, a particularly SPECIFIC legal process appears to have gone awry. Surely IF you sold a car to someone who showed you "Bank Proof" you guys would find an Ambulance Chaser and get your money back, and yet we haven't actually heard of anyone doing this (apart from Chinny taking a mortgage)

 

So, the question is.

 

Did anyone SEE proof of funds from CSI? If they did then why are they not taking some action to sue the organisation that gave them the letter.

 

OR, is it just possible that somebody actually FELL for the sales pitch and didn't actually ASK to see PoF?

 

Oh dear, now if THAT happened, somebody somewhere (AA, Lampitt) could be in a whole heap of Compliance trouble.

 

If only somebody had correspondence from CSI showing whether they were willing to actually prove funds. That could be a ticking clock for somebody AA?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13:07

 

 

[Comment From TaskForce TaskForce : ]

Whats the update regarding the Italians at Udinese who are interested in the club.

Wednesday December 14, 2011 13:07 TaskForce

13:08

 

 

David:

Can you put them in touch with me or get them online right now?!

 

 

lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

[TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=class: chatmsgtime, bgcolor: #F6F6F6]13:32

[/TD]

[TD=class: chatmsgtext viewer_text, bgcolor: #FFFFFF][TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]Comment From lew11

hello david,when did you first get an inkling all was not well with csi ? [/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

fb_share2.png

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=class: chatmsgtime, bgcolor: #F6F6F6]13:35

[/TD]

[TD=class: chatmsgtext altcaster_text, bgcolor: #FFFFFF][TABLE]

[TR]

[TD]phpqvaNbPlampitt_150.jpg[/TD]

[TD]David:

tbh the events of the last few weeks have been a bolt from the blue. if you'd asked me (and most fans) a month ago i think most would have said that they were pretty happy with csi ownership and the way the club was moving forward. i still think we are in good shape as a club despite what's happened which is why i'm confident we will work our way through this. [/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

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})