Generic clubs in financial crisis Thread

[Uke]

Former Portsmouth chief Peter Storrie would relish return to club...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17545079

To relive the glory days?

[Cobi]

Former Portsmouth chief Peter Storrie would relish return to club...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17545079

To relive the glory days?

He should never be allowed near another football club.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Peter Storey would be more trustworthy

[Royal With Cheese]

Peter Storey would be more trustworthy

Than Alan Stanford perhaps.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Peter Storey would be more trustworthy

Than Alan Stanford perhaps.

With Peter Storey in charge, the worst you'd have to worry about would be him smuggling porn back inside the tyres of the team bus on pre-season tours.

[Friday's Legacy]

The Football Creditors Rule could 'destroy' Portsmouth FC, it has been claimed by tax authorities.

A skeleton argument of HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), summarised in the High Court late last year, claimed the Premier League and Football League, who impose the rule, "threaten to destroy the club as a going concern to the disadvantage of the creditors as a whole" unless there is an agreement.

HMRC have attempted to close clubs down over unpaid tax bills, by issuing winding up petitions, and they only receive a fraction of what they are owed unlike football creditors, such as other clubs and players, who are paid in full.

A High Court judge is expected to make a ruling before the end of the season.

Sky Sports News has seen a 106-page document prepared by HMRC for its on-going legal dispute against football authorities to have the rule scrapped and it contains an account of the measures taken during Portsmouth's last three months in the Premier League in 2010.

The HMRC document has also revealed that Darlington FC were required to pay just £3.64 in unpaid tax, despite owing more than £400,000, following their second spell in administration in 2009.

Portsmouth had to pay more than £1.1million in Premier League fines for rule breaches, and other costs, after they entered administration two years ago.

The Premier League withheld £1,163,000 from Portsmouth after a confidential agreement was made on 18 March, 2010 to enable the club to continue to fulfil its fixtures.

Extraordinary measures

The HMRC document stated how the Premier League agreed to extraordinary measures to ensure the club's survival.

It says that the Premier League agreed to advance £6,886,117 of 'parachute payments', entitled to Portsmouth after relegation to the Championship, so the club could pay wages.

Portsmouth received three advance instalments of £2m from March 22 to May 17, 2010, and a final payment of £880,117 on June 16, 2010.

It is claimed nearly £22.4m was owed to football creditors, by Portsmouth, on May 28, 2010.

According to the HMRC document, this included £17.3m in transfer fees; £1.2m in player bonuses; £1.5m in player image rights; £1.54m in Employee Benefit Trusts and £785,000 for other agreements.

The tax authorities' document reveals how Darlington were required to pay just £3.64 of unpaid tax in 2009, as part of an administrator's deal that saw unsecured creditors offered 0.0009% of money owed.

In 2007, the HMRC document states that Leeds were required to pay 2% of £7.7m in unpaid tax that equates to around £154,000.

HMRC claim they are owed at least nearly £40m in unpaid tax, between 2000 and 2010, after 53 cases of clubs in England entering administration.

A spokesman for HMRC said: "HMRC's view is that the rule is unfair, unlawful and unacceptable which is why we are challenging it in the courts. We believe it cannot be right that a rule that does not apply in any other form of business is short changing non-football creditors, including the public purse."

Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore told a parliamentary inquiry into football governance last year: "We will defend it (football creditors rule) on the basis of the chaos that will ensue if we don't have it."

It is understood the Premier League believes the rule is necessary to protect the integrity of its competition, clubs and players.

Clubs can only receive money from the Premier League if they meet its required rules.

A Football League spokesman told Sky Sports News: "These claims were put forward by HMRC during High Court proceedings in November 2011 and The Football League's legal representatives responded in detail at the time. Given the Court has not yet issued its judgement in relation to those arguments, it would be inappropriate for The Football League to comment at this time."

[Mr Angry]

The fact that the Premier League did that to save Pompey is nothing short of a disgrace; I'm sure that teams lost out because Pompey didn't get liquidated in 2010, so the PL in effect acted against the interests of other clubs in its competition, as well as affecting teams (such as us) in the Championship.

[Barry the bird boggler]

It is understood the Premier League believes the rule is necessary to protect the integrity of its competition, clubs and players.

Doesn't that just ay it all! Here's hoping the judge rules in favour of HMRC.

What I still don't understand though is who approved this Football Creditor's law in the first place to give it any legal standing, and why.

[Wimb]

More on Plymouth, very deep and detailed but an interesting read and makes you thankful we've had so many years of just SJM!

http://thetwounfortunates.com/is-plymou ... n-turmoil/

[Skyline]

It is understood the Premier League believes the rule is necessary to protect the integrity of its competition, clubs and players.

Doesn't that just ay it all! Here's hoping the judge rules in favour of HMRC.

What I still don't understand though is who approved this Football Creditor's law in the first place to give it any legal standing, and why.

According to Wikipedia it came about as a result of the Enterprise Act 2002.

While looking it up I also found this e-petition calling for it to be abolished. It's now closed, and only picked up 56 signatures anyway, so either people want to keep it / aren't really bothered / don't know about it, or else the guy starting it just didn't do a good job of promoting it.

[Dare to Dr£am]

It is understood the Premier League believes the rule is necessary to protect the integrity of its competition, clubs and players.

Doesn't that just ay it all! Here's hoping the judge rules in favour of HMRC.

What I still don't understand though is who approved this Football Creditor's law in the first place to give it any legal standing, and why.

According to Wikipedia it came about as a result of the Enterprise Act 2002.

While looking it up I also found this e-petition calling for it to be abolished. It's now closed, and only picked up 56 signatures anyway, so either people want to keep it / aren't really bothered / don't know about it, or else the guy starting it just didn't do a good job of promoting it.

With Facebook and Twitter that could gather thousands of signatures.

[Terminal Boardom]

So it is perfectly acceptable for football clubs to rip off the taxman whereas the ordinary punter has no option but get screwed with PAYE and VAT. Just as tasteless is that the Premier League / FA / Football League don't care.

[Barry the bird boggler]

From the BBC OS


Pompey Supporters' Trust spokesman Scott Mclachlan says it needs to raise £8m to save Portsmouth.

The PST recently launched a share scheme inviting Pompey fans to deposit a refundable minimum of £100 into a protected account.

If sufficient numbers respond, the PST will undertake due diligence and develop an offer to buy the club.

"We would need £8m to buy the club but that does not have to all come from shares," Mclachlan told BBC Solent.

The PST scheme is supported by Portsmouth North MP Penny Mordaunt while administrator Trevor Birch described the move as a "sensible way forward".

So far Mclachlan says it has had hundreds of applicants, but admitted this would need to run into thousands for the scheme to be a success.

"We think it is going well but it is early days to start counting numbers," added Mclachlan.

"We've got to spend the next three of four weeks convincing people this is a viable option.

"We've had hundreds so far and there is no shame in that figure. The majority will look at the details and decide whether they can contribute themselves.

"There are probably going to be people across Hampshire and abroad who cannot afford that number but they can look to go in with a syndicate.

"But the initial reaction is very positive."

Portsmouth are currently in administration and facing relegation to League One but are in danger of going out of business if a buyer cannot be found in the summer.

"We need to put as much money in the pot as possible to go to Trevor Birch and convince him that we are credible," said Mclachlan.

"The £8m we need can also come from local businesses or from high-network individuals or from partners who can only go so far and want the fans to be involved.

"This should be a community club, but there is a lot of work still to be done.

"We are pleased that the city is embracing this and that more people are getting involved. This is a football club in dire need of some TLC and I'm sure the city will rally around to make this happen."

[Wax Jacket]

refundable

LOL

[weybridgewanderer]

So that will let them buy the club and pay some of the creditors

What are they going to use as working capital?

[Royal Rother]

A long-term / open-ended advance on parachute payments probably - from the next time they go up to the PL and get relegated.

Nothing would surprise me.

[Friday's Legacy]

Rangers confirm debts of £134m and will consider bids from three of the four interested parties.

[Mr Angry]

How does raising £8M "save" Pompey?

Chainrai is owed £17M alone.

Gaydemak owns the land around the ground and refuses to sell it.

As was pointed out a few weeks ago, even relegation won't change the fact that Pompey have a massive wages overspend as very few of the players have relegation clauses in their contracts.

Also, wasn't April 1st the date of the first payment of the original CVA?? Has that happened, or has it been breached, and if it has been breached, what punishments are the FL taking against Portsmouth FC?

Still, if a couple of happy-clappy types think there are 80,000 people willing to give £100 pounds to Portsmouth FC in order to raise enough to give a previous owner less than 50% of what he is owed in loans (albeit "loans" secured on a ground worth £3M) then let them get on with it.

It will have the same effect as a trainee parachutist being told to cross his legs if his parachute fails to open - it gives him something to think about before he dies.

[leon]

How does raising £8M "save" Pompey?

Chainrai is owed £17M alone.

Gaydemak owns the land around the ground and refuses to sell it.

As was pointed out a few weeks ago, even relegation won't change the fact that Pompey have a massive wages overspend as very few of the players have relegation clauses in their contracts.

Also, wasn't April 1st the date of the first payment of the original CVA?? Has that happened, or has it been breached, and if it has been breached, what punishments are the FL taking against Portsmouth FC?

Still, if a couple of happy-clappy types think there are 80,000 people willing to give £100 pounds to Portsmouth FC in order to raise enough to give a previous owner less than 50% of what he is owed in loans (albeit "loans" secured on a ground worth £3M) then let them get on with it.

It will have the same effect as a trainee parachutist being told to cross his legs if his parachute fails to open - it gives him something to think about before he dies.

especially as most Portsmouth fans are pikeys - it's a big ask.

[Royal Monk]

The administrator has said that Portsmuff will not be honouring the cva .... the date for the first installment has passed so in effect the cva has been breached