View Full Version : Portsmouths situation?
Celestial Empire
05-08-2010, 03:10 PM
Actually HMRC are saying it is avoidance, and Pompey are saying it is planning their affairs in a tax efficient manner.
HMRC are saying tax IS due, Pompey are saying it ISN'T !
(bloody lawyers trying to blind with "science").:hmph:
kolinkins
05-08-2010, 03:11 PM
I find myself disappointed by this decision.
Basically, football clubs can continue to shaft the tax man (and so our public services)
StudentEagle
05-08-2010, 03:11 PM
Ought to be a very interesting judgment. Not that it'll be available until after the appeal!
Woosie
05-08-2010, 03:12 PM
So if HMRC appeal when will it be heard and would that be the final ruling?
GreatGonzo
05-08-2010, 03:13 PM
So if HMRC appeal when will it be heard and would that be the final ruling?
Tomorrow ahead of the start of the season, hence why the whole thing was brought forward, usually they would have this heard in Oct/Nov.
Woosie
05-08-2010, 03:15 PM
Tomorrow ahead of the start of the season, hence why the whole thing was brought forward, usually they would have this heard in Oct/Nov.
Oh right thanks. I imagine Portsmouth will have the upper hand considering this appeal by HMRC went their way?
Absolution
05-08-2010, 03:16 PM
To be honest, I would rather that HMRC won in this case.
It's miles apart from our situation, very dodgy.
Penstone Eagle
05-08-2010, 03:16 PM
I find myself disappointed by this decision.
Basically, football clubs can continue to shaft the tax man (and so our public services)
I feel the same.
I have a feeling though that Pompey will be the last to escape, surely changes to regulations/ guidelines will be made so that there are no further 'misunderstandings', I can only assume there has been 'reasonable doubt' about Pompey's actions.
They have been lucky.
GreatGonzo
05-08-2010, 03:17 PM
Yes as was said earlier no Judge wants his ruling overturned and he had previously asked both parties if they would appeal and they said they would. it makes Pompey VERY strong favourites to win.
Celestial Empire
05-08-2010, 03:18 PM
I find myself disappointed by this decision.
Basically, football clubs can continue to shaft the tax man (and so our public services)
Ha-ha, I knew the crocodile tears would soon disappear when Pompey are allowed to get away with it.
The SOS statement is worth putting up on here if anybody can oblige (?) Although they are obviously relieved that their club is safe, they are calling for a thorough investigation of the club and all of the crooks brought to book.
The "Football Authorities" will, of course, just look the other way.
Adlerhorst
05-08-2010, 03:18 PM
I find myself disappointed by this decision.
Basically, football clubs can continue to shaft the tax man (and so our public services)To be honest, I am inclined to agree with you. :eek:
The issue is with the FA/FL insisting their members are paid in full before they will allow a team to compete, not HMRC insisting being treated the same as other unsecured creditors.
GreatGonzo
05-08-2010, 03:18 PM
I feel the same.
I have a feeling though that Pompey will be the last to escape,
Doubt it, unless they hold enough of the debt HMRC are left impotent as they were in our case where they could do nothing.
thehalifaxman
05-08-2010, 03:19 PM
So they're selling it to themselves and getting rid of the debt? Surely this is what the minus 20 points system should be about. Our situation is completely different. One owner "struggled" was put into admin by an outside party and another came in to save the club from extinction. With pompey they've just got rid of debt and will get in this mess again with the same owners, who still won't own the ground, area around the ground and have players on stupid wages. How does this even solve the problem? Just buys them time the local businesses and the tax man lose out next time this happens?
IpswichEagle
05-08-2010, 03:20 PM
I find myself disappointed by this decision.
Basically, football clubs can continue to shaft the tax man (and so our public services)
How much did we 'shaft' the taxman with this year then?
As a Palace fan, it's hard to take the hard line against football clubs when we have narrowly avoided extinction and had millions of our debts written off.
I know the Pompey situation is different because of the dispute over the actual amount but still, i would hate any true loyal fans (and Pompey have many) to be penalised because of money men. A HMRC win would have put Pompey, a historic club, out of business.
I want to see rules. Tough rules on spending. I don't want to see punishments which are basically death penalties for badly run football clubs. Retrospective action is useless, it puts off no-one.
1fb6
Absolution
05-08-2010, 03:21 PM
English football may need to see a major team die to drag it back into reality.
If Portsmouth were hung out to dry by HMRC then other clubs would have to learn to play by the rules. Too many clubs in the top flight are killing their clubs in the long run.
Celestial Empire
05-08-2010, 03:23 PM
And Andronikou will become the Administrator of choice for every dodgy owner putting his club into administration.
Bad news for the Guilfoyles.
Chester
05-08-2010, 03:23 PM
Id imagine the next club to go into administration is going to now be made an example of.
thehalifaxman
05-08-2010, 03:24 PM
I think everyone just wanted to see Pompey going in the right direction. Needs to be bought out by decent people willing to run it properly
Adlerhorst
05-08-2010, 03:24 PM
English football may need to see a major team die to drag it back into reality.
If Portsmouth were hung out to dry by HMRC then other clubs would have to learn to play by the rules. Too many clubs in the top flight are killing their clubs in the long run.Everyone needs to get real.
Pompey would not / will not be hung out to dry by HMRC. It is the FL/FA who are the problem and insist that their members are paid in full even though they, like HMRC, are unsecured creditors, otherwise the golden share does not transfer / remain.
The rules need to be changed by the FA/FL.
Ask yourself this. The monies either go to HMRC (hence the government - schools and hospitals) of they go to the likes of Tottenham in a vastly unfair proportion. So no schools and straight into the pockets of the players through wages.
kolinkins
05-08-2010, 03:25 PM
How much did we 'shaft' the taxman with this year then?
by a hell of a lot less than Pompey. Had we needed to pay them in full, the amount was small enough that I am sure CPFC2010 probably would have paid it (note - just them, not all the unsecured creditors).
Doubt that's the case with Pompey
Celestial Empire
05-08-2010, 03:28 PM
Everyone needs to get real.
Pompey would not / will not be hung out to dry by HMRC. It is the FL/FA who are the problem and insist that their members are paid in full even though they, like HMRC, are unsecured creditors, otherwise the golden share does not transfer / remain.
The rules need to be changed by the FA/FL.
That is a trivial issue compared to what the Prem/FA/FL have allowed various crooked owners to get away with at Pompey.
tackletart
05-08-2010, 03:28 PM
hmrc not to appeal....
Random*
05-08-2010, 03:28 PM
HMRC not going to appeal.
Adlerhorst
05-08-2010, 03:29 PM
That is a trivial issue compared to what the Prem/FA/FL have allowed various crooked owners to get away with at Pompey.True, but it is the reason why a football club will die one day.
However, it is clear we are agreed on one thing. It is the FA / EPL / FL who are at fault.
Adlerhorst
05-08-2010, 03:29 PM
HMRC not going to appeal.Wow.
kolinkins
05-08-2010, 03:30 PM
This is shocking stuff.
Basically - don't pay tax and nothing will happen to you - is the lesson from this.
Adlerhorst
05-08-2010, 03:31 PM
This is shocking stuff.
Basically - don't pay tax and nothing will happen to you - is the lesson from this.That cannot be it at all. There has to be more going on. This is about principle, not £13m tax.
I wonder.
Celestial Empire
05-08-2010, 03:32 PM
True, but it is the reason why a football club will die one day.
However, it is clear we are agreed on one thing. It is the FA / EPL / FL who are at fault.
And I guess this marks the end of HMRC's campaign to get the FL creditors rule changed ?:confused:
I think we agree on lots.;)
brooklynlou
05-08-2010, 03:32 PM
I did not want Pompey to go down but this decision is horrible. Basically it gives the clubs carte blanche to do whatever they want vis a vis creative accounting and then once in administration, all their previous sins are forgiven. The government has to create a clear cut system to ensure it gets paid.
How much did we 'shaft' the taxman with this year then?
As a Palace fan, it's hard to take the hard line against football clubs when we have narrowly avoided extinction and had millions of our debts written off.
I know the Pompey situation is different because of the dispute over the actual amount but still, i would hate any true loyal fans (and Pompey have many) to be penalised because of money men. A HMRC win would have put Pompey, a historic club, out of business.
I want to see rules. Tough rules on spending. I don't want to see punishments which are basically death penalties for badly run football clubs. Retrospective action is useless, it puts off no-one.
:p Sir, I take my hat off to you! What an excellent post.
No football fan and especially a Palace fan, should wish to see the threat of closure to another Club succeed.
kolinkins
05-08-2010, 03:33 PM
That cannot be it at all. There has to be more going on.
I wonder.
I make you right
you're right about the rules that need changing though. It's nonsense that it's more right, for want of a better phrase, for Pompey to pay Spurs a few £m than to pay the taxman.
celery stick
05-08-2010, 03:33 PM
Pleased for the Pompey fans.
As for tax evasion .......... I can't be bothered to comment about that on this thread.
2277
Adlerhorst
05-08-2010, 03:36 PM
And I guess this marks the end of HMRC's campaign to get the FL creditors rule changed ?:confused:
I think we agree on lots.;)I don't think it is the end of the campaign, simply that this was not the one to fight it on. I suspect that they have been advised that they are unlikely to overturn the additional tax amounts and as such on appeal the unfairness of the whole thing won't be considered as they don't have enough % of debt.
But that is pure guesswork. However in my experience once HMRC (and more realistically HMT) get on their high horse about something like that they will continue to pursue it.
Adlerhorst
05-08-2010, 03:37 PM
I did not want Pompey to go down but this decision is horrible. Basically it gives the clubs carte blanche to do whatever they want vis a vis creative accounting and then once in administration, all their previous sins are forgiven. The government has to create a clear cut system to ensure it gets paid.Again, I don't think that's how it should be viewed. This is not a decision about the tax planning. If HMRC want to go for that they can go for any of the clubs that have implemented that sort of scheme. Or just change the law.
eagle mart
05-08-2010, 03:37 PM
Chanri is the one who will be owning Pompey again.....
GreatGonzo
05-08-2010, 03:39 PM
In the statement by HMRC's QC it is all talking about the inequity in treatment of creditors - a ruling that was tested in the Wimbledon case many years ago.
That they are not highlighting on the tax avoidance/evasion issue suggests to me that they feel this element of their case was not as strong and were hoping to get the courts to rule based on Football Creditors Rule. That they did not go against Pompey on that is not that surprising to me.
Adlerhorst
05-08-2010, 03:39 PM
Chanri is the one who will be owning Pompey again.....He just wants a viable business to sell to get his money back. Really quite similar to Agilo. They just want their money back.
brooklynlou
05-08-2010, 03:41 PM
Again, I don't think that's how it should be viewed. This is not a decision about the tax planning. If HMRC want to go for that they can go for any of the clubs that have implemented that sort of scheme. Or just change the law.
Thats what I was saying, they need to change the law
Nork1
05-08-2010, 03:41 PM
Glad for the fans but **** it, I'm buggered if I'm going to pay my tax now. Not that I do since I lost my job but that's beside the point! How the hell did they get away with this??
IpswichEagle
05-08-2010, 03:41 PM
by a hell of a lot less than Pompey. Had we needed to pay them in full, the amount was small enough that I am sure CPFC2010 probably would have paid it (note - just them, not all the unsecured creditors).
Doubt that's the case with Pompey
True that it was massively less, but then it's still taxpayers money in principle.
I forget how much our actual debt was totalled at, £20-30m or something? The vast majority was written off. Theoretically the taxman has lost even more, as all those businesses, banks and unsecured creditors pay tax on their profits (damaged by Palace), there were also job losses (lost NI, Tax and increased jobseekers).
There is always a domino effect when any business goes bust.
I stand by the fact that crooked as the Pompey situation was, thousands of people were on the brink of losing the club they love. People who bring in millions in revenue every year. Keeping Pompey running would surely pay the taxman back within a few years anyway with Tax and NI from a properly run enterprise.
HMRC's objection was more in principle than merit.
It's the rules on financial management of clubs that needs an overhaul.
HMRC clearly didn't have a strong enough case or the Government's rules are simply too lax regarding tax evasion (the image rights issue).
I'm happy for all Portsmouth fans.
GreatGonzo
05-08-2010, 03:41 PM
He just wants a viable business to sell to get his money back. Really quite similar to Agilo. They just want their money back.
Quite possibly, but he could end up holding onto it for a while, and may even do a Mike Ashley and see more value in getting them back into the Premiership first.
They haven't yet sorted out the parking issue though have they - is their game still in danger?
Celestial Empire
05-08-2010, 03:41 PM
Again, I don't think that's how it should be viewed. This is not a decision about the tax planning. If HMRC want to go for that they can go for any of the clubs that have implemented that sort of scheme. Or just change the law.
Is the problem for HMRC with this "tax planning" nonsense, that it is allowed under the EU jurisdiction/law ?
GreatGonzo
05-08-2010, 03:42 PM
Glad for the fans but **** it, I'm buggered if I'm going to pay my tax now. Not that I do since I lost my job but that's beside the point! How the hell did they get away with this??
I am rewriting my contract - i have image rights you know! ;)
Funk Butter
05-08-2010, 03:42 PM
So, Portsmouth did some dodgy accounting to avoid paying more taxes, admitted to doing it when they couldn't pay the remaining taxes, told the HMRC to go kick rocks and got away with it? Do I have that right?
celery stick
05-08-2010, 03:47 PM
I'm far more upset about Lords and Corporations who don't pay tax.
Makes a nice change to see something worth keeping get away with it.
brooklynlou
05-08-2010, 03:49 PM
So, Portsmouth did some dodgy accounting to avoid paying more taxes, admitted to doing it when they couldn't pay the remaining taxes, told the HMRC to go kick rocks and got away with it? Do I have that right?
In a nut shell, yes.
Adlerhorst
05-08-2010, 03:50 PM
Is the problem for HMRC with this "tax planning" nonsense, that it is allowed under the EU jurisdiction/law ?Not really, no.
I am not a personal tax person (and this is personal tax / PAYE not corporate tax) but I think it is broadly this.
A UK tax res individual is taxed on their worldwide income and gains. So salary is taxable wherever it is paid. Image rights relate to an intangible asset. This intangible asset is owned by a company in a tax haven. Payments made to that company are not taxable on the individual until a dividend is paid from the company to the individual (or something similar - there are probably trusts involved somewhere - there usually are with income tax planning).
HMRC argue it is all remuneration, and that the image rights thing is essentially bollocks.
22f8
Adlerhorst
05-08-2010, 03:50 PM
In a nut shell, yes.No, it isn't.
Adlerhorst
05-08-2010, 03:52 PM
I'm far more upset about Lords and Corporations who don't pay tax.
Makes a nice change to see something worth keeping get away with it.Portsmouth is a company.
This is personal tax planning (i.e. essentially it is the players getting away with it, the club is liable through the PAYE regime - I think).
GreatGonzo
05-08-2010, 03:53 PM
HMRC argue it is all remuneration, and that the image rights thing is essentially bollocks.
Which is true but in not appealing and not mentioning it too much in the statement available on teh BBC website it make me think HMRC struggled to given enough proof on this issue.
It look to me as this was the sidshow and the Football League rules was the main entertainment when i had expected it to be the other way round.
Adlerhorst
05-08-2010, 03:54 PM
Which is true but in not appealing and not mentioning it too much in the statement available on teh BBC website it make me think HMRC struggled to given enough proof on this issue.
It look to me as this was the sidshow and the Football League rules was the main entertainment when i had expected it to be the other way round.This case was not about whether the planning worked or not. I think it was whether an unresolved tax enquiry, and the additional revenues that MIGHT come from it could count towards debt or not.
If it did not did HMRC have enough % of debt to challenge all this? Not a corporate lawyer, not sure of the implications.
celery stick
05-08-2010, 03:55 PM
Portsmouth is a company.
This is personal tax planning (i.e. essentially it is the players getting away with it, the club is liable through the PAYE regime - I think).
Sure. I am still glad Pompey survives.
I wouldn't care less about the likes of Tesco and Lord Ashcroft.
Baffled Bob 2
05-08-2010, 03:56 PM
But I bet if one of their players breaks an ankle on Saturday and is taken to Portsmouth General Hosp, they'll be glad at least someone is paying tax.
Adlerhorst
05-08-2010, 03:56 PM
I am still glad Pompey survives.
Agree with that entirely.
GreatGonzo
05-08-2010, 03:57 PM
This case was not about whether the planning worked or not. I think it was whether an unresolved tax enquiry, and the additional revenues that MIGHT come from it could count towards debt or not.
If it did not did HMRC have enough % of debt to challenge all this? Not a corporate lawyer, not sure of the implications.
No i think this case was HMRC trying to get the football creditors rule overturned.
The Image rights issue was secondary based on the noises they have made since on the BBC. It may be incorrect but it looks like that at the moment to me.
Adlerhorst
05-08-2010, 03:58 PM
No i think this case was HMRC trying to get the football creditors rule overturned.
The Image rights issue was secondary based on the noises they have made since on the BBC. It may be incorrect but it looks like that at the moment to me.Yes, but if they have too small a % of debt, can they actually do that. That's my point / question.
Want to see the decision.
GreatGonzo
05-08-2010, 03:58 PM
But I bet if one of their players breaks an ankle on Saturday and is taken to Portsmouth General Hosp, they'll be glad at least someone is paying tax.
Depends which one of their players judging on a conversation i had with lady from said hospital yesterday regarding right of foriegners to NHS treatment ;)
GreatGonzo
05-08-2010, 04:00 PM
Yes, but if they have too small a % of debt, can they actually do that. That's my point / quesiton.
Want to see the decision.
Unless they were using the 'argument' about tax just to get it into the courtroom? Seems strange that having lost they a) have not appealed and b) are only really talking about the football creditors rule rather than tax liability.
Beckenham Boy
05-08-2010, 04:07 PM
I believe they have not appealed in order to attack the Football creditors rule in court very soon
This is their main grudge and will be the thing they go after
spike
05-08-2010, 04:17 PM
I have asked this on one of the CP admin threads, but is it possible to use an intangible asset (the league share) as security, and if so is there a limit to how much security it provides(so if you secure one transfer debt, what happens if you want to offer security on the next transfer)?
I ask as my point was that the selling clubs could use the share as their security against non-payment, and then become secured creditors when things go wrong.
Would this work, as it's not as if it is something that could ultimately be sold on the open market to raise cash?
Not that the clubs should avoid paying their taxes, but whether it is an arguement the FA could use to justify their rules.
Gooders
05-08-2010, 04:22 PM
HMRC doesn't get its act together.
Who knew.
brooklynlou
05-08-2010, 04:36 PM
Unless they were using the 'argument' about tax just to get it into the courtroom? Seems strange that having lost they a) have not appealed and b) are only really talking about the football creditors rule rather than tax liability.
There were two legs to their argument.
- They should be treated as equal creditors (Main argument)
- The club was responsible for tax money on image rights payments and if they are, the HRMC would have had enough % of the debt to vote against it. (Secondary Argument)
Personally I thought the second argument was the strongest since 1) Pompey set up the off shore accounts for the players 2) The image right money that the players were payed far exceeded what those image rights could actually be worth (Sol was getting 30k salary and 30k image rights money per week)
They lost on both counts.
HMRC had argued at a two-day hearing this week that the CVA was "unfair and seriously flawed" as it gave preference to football creditors, including players, who were able to claim up to 100% of monies owed them, while other creditors, including the Revenue, would receive much less.
Gregory Mitchell QC, appearing for HMRC, said that under what was known as the football creditors rule: "One class scoops the pool and the rest are left out in the cold."
HMRC also argued it was owed £13 million more than the £24m value put on its claim. The administrators disputed the accuracy of the tax authorities' figures and assessments, and today the judge ruled in their favour.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/aug/05/hmrc-fail-block-portsmouth-administration
1f87
bern5161
05-08-2010, 04:40 PM
this matter was simply hmrc appealing against the cva as constituted by the portsmouth administrators on the grounds that their debt was not properly assessed. the appeal went down because the judge did not accept the hmrc arguments in relation to the tax liability of the image rights payments.
it was not an appeal against the status of football creditors under league regulations nor was it an allegation of criminal wrongdoing by persons responsible for the running of the portsmouth football club. hmrc will be bringing an action later in the year to overturn the football creditor ruling. if that doesn't work they will lobby for a change in the law.
FORZA SELHURST
05-08-2010, 05:08 PM
Does anyone know whether the image right payments fall under the 'football debts' along with normal salaries to players?
GreatGonzo
05-08-2010, 05:10 PM
They cannot be a direct payment to the player can they or they would be taxable so they well not count as Fotball debts.
sheepy
05-08-2010, 05:29 PM
There were two legs to their argument.
- They should be treated as equal creditors (Main argument)
- The club was responsible for tax money on image rights payments and if they are, the HRMC would have had enough % of the debt to vote against it. (Secondary Argument)
Personally I thought the second argument was the strongest since 1) Pompey set up the off shore accounts for the players 2) The image right money that the players were payed far exceeded what those image rights could actually be worth (Sol was getting 30k salary and 30k image rights money per week)
They lost on both counts.
Agree about their second arguement being the strongest however a club already on its knees should not have been the target for them to go after on this point. Arsenal, Man U etc are guilty of doing this and should be the targets for the taxman for this. Bring them down and that would really send a message to football.
Forcing a smallish club out of existence doesn't really do anything for the game and only ends up costing thousands of people the club they've supported for their lifetimes.
I'm really glad pompey survived this and hope they can look to get themselves back on sure footing whilst sticking two fingers up at Gaydamak.
cdm61
05-08-2010, 09:20 PM
I cant make this one out - why cant the HMRC simply get the law changed to require football to make them secured creditors surely the state has the power to do that...HMRC slamed me into court for non payment of tax even though Ive been PAYE all my working life...I won in the end...
Misery Guts
05-08-2010, 09:32 PM
Overall I am pleased for the Pompey fans and really no-one else involved in this sorry state of affairs
The former owners of Portsmouth really need to be banned from owning a ball point pen let alone a football club, some of the stories of portsmouths debt problems are just unbelievably incompetant
As for HMRC just how incompetant do you have to be to manage to loose a case like this ? It looks like the HMRC have taken a gamble and lost
Celestial Empire
05-08-2010, 11:21 PM
Which is true but in not appealing and not mentioning it too much in the statement available on teh BBC website it make me think HMRC struggled to given enough proof on this issue.
It look to me as this was the sidshow and the Football League rules was the main entertainment when i had expected it to be the other way round.
Maybe because the whole entertainment industry (very important for the UK), has similar arrangements, and nixing this loophole would open a massive can of worms with dozens (more) "stars" threatening to become tax exiles ?
Beckenham Boy
06-08-2010, 11:00 AM
I see that the Premier League sent a letter to the Judge the day before his verdict asking him not to consider, discuss or mention the Football Creditor rule in relation to this verdict. At the end of the day this case was not about that ruling and hence why he did not consider it, however I do wonder if it had some effect on the judge
Funk Butter
07-08-2010, 05:59 PM
http://img.skysports.com/10/08/800x600/Coventry-Portsmouth-Championship_2484760.jpg
This is indeed a situation. (Who's missing from their list there, just youths?) And I would assume almost half those guys will still be off to Premier League clubs.
Gooders
07-08-2010, 06:10 PM
Boateng and Utaka will be leaving quite soon.
One of their fans was on the radio this evening commenting on the fact that it didn't help when players came on their pre-season trip and then promptly got home and signed for someone else. Think we dodged a bullet with that **** who did that.
gold76
08-08-2010, 08:02 AM
Portsmouth
* 01 Ashdown
* 04 Mokoena
* 05 Ritchie
* 08 Mullins
* 25 Sonko
* 06 Wilson
* 11 Brown
* 22 Hughes (Ciftci 73)
* 10 Nugent
* 17 Utaka yellow card (Gregory 83)
* 21 Smith
Substitutes
* 31 O'Brien,
* 39 Gregory,
* 14 Pack,
* 24 Ciftci
Only had 15 players yesterday, quite a strong starting 11, but if they get injuries & sell a couple then it will be youth team, a long hard season
dannyboy1807
08-08-2010, 11:25 AM
They surely have to get rid of Utaka he is on 70k a week
ChristalPalace
26-08-2010, 08:27 PM
Looks like Kanu is going to sign a new contract.
This will be funded by selling Mark Wilson to Stoke and getting £3m plus Liam Lawrence, or possibly less money and Lawrence AND Dave Kitson though. How can they take on more Premier League players' wages though?
Boyandy
10-09-2010, 02:09 PM
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Duos-wages-are-exception-to.6521804.jp
Well at least some of us are cutting our cloth accordingly I guess..
cartwheel
10-09-2010, 02:24 PM
1f55
That club never fails to amaze me, Championship team in admin but paying 19 & 20k a week. What a joke, how on earth are they allowed to do this.
Man of Kent
10-09-2010, 02:30 PM
This is a ****** disgrace. I'm sick of football and it's double standards. Those poor creditors of Portsmouth will get feck all, but they can still splash out on £19k/£20 per week players.
Whilst I never want to see a club go out of business, it frustrates me massively that this sort of thing goes on. Eat a bit of humble pie ffs.
Shipp Ahoy!
10-09-2010, 02:31 PM
How is this allowed? I thought the FL regulated transfers once a club come out of admin???
Surely they would have told Pompey to F off and that they had to be joking.
GreatGonzo
10-09-2010, 02:33 PM
You have to love teh genius supporters tey have down there, at least they occasionally realise their stupidity.
Doh, scrub that, I just realised it's 23 home games, serves me right for doing calcs at the wrong end of the day for me. was Chestnuts response to his own post saying......
And to back it up, we will get a 16k gate at least if we are competitive, and 20k if we are challenging.
@ 16k with an average ticket price of £25 equates to £18000000 on a 45 game season, cups are on top, devide that down by 15 potential players and they would be on £23000 pw each, allowing that you only have 5 max on 20k and the other 15 ranging between 5-12k pw, say an average of 10k pw and the wage bill is £13000000, leaving 5 million to run the rest of the club, plus cup games and merchandising, and tv and prize money should you win anything.
There is of course tax, but no football club runs on profit, most are tax offsets for another business, but looking at what is realistic in income, we do not need to resort to buying players who won't be any good simply because they are cheap to run.
Should we get 20k gates, the money balance gets even better, this is how we should've tried to operate when we were in the PL, ok it wouldn't have been challenging the top 8, but I'm sure we could've made 12-15th place each year with the right players that would've wanted to play PL for £25k pw or less.
Would hate to mention that ST will be discounted from the usual rate as will kids and OAP's etc etc, means the average would be £20 i would hav thought at most. Using his own calculations, 23 games, 16k attendance, £20 average is just over £7m, even split between just 15 players (who wants to explain this one to him?) is LESS than £10k a week. Yet apparently they should be paying massive wages. They shouldn't even be looking at average wages of £10k a week - that should be the max. It is outrageous that teh FL are scrutinising our every move and allowing Pompey to continue on their self destructive path!
It is also no wonder they are in so much trouble with fans like that!
GreatGonzo
10-09-2010, 02:35 PM
How is this allowed? I thought the FL regulated transfers once a club come out of admin???
Surely they would have told Pompey to F off and that they had to be joking.
Andronikou is still running the show so they are not out of administration yet are they?
Man of Kent
10-09-2010, 02:42 PM
If they are crap, they will get 10k max. For Portsmouth, read Reading. Just an elongated flash in the pan..
wedgetail
10-09-2010, 02:58 PM
Portsmouth are still in administration, the passing on of the League share to the new company is being held up.
Shipp Ahoy!
10-09-2010, 03:00 PM
I just don't get how a club in administration is allowed to bring in players on £19-£20k a week, regardless of how many players they have in the squad.
They seriously need to review the rules around this.
GreatGonzo
10-09-2010, 03:03 PM
Don't forget that Pompey's CVA is all connected to their parachute payments. So they will not be able to rely on all the £16m they were due.
How can they sustain a wage bill of over £10m a season?
Beanie
10-09-2010, 03:03 PM
This is a ****** disgrace. I'm sick of football and it's double standards. Those poor creditors of Portsmouth will get feck all, but they can still splash out on £19k/£20 per week players.
Whilst I never want to see a club go out of business, it frustrates me massively that this sort of thing goes on. Eat a bit of humble pie ffs.
With all due respect we can't talk. Whilst we are paying less the CVA for Portsmouth's creditors will pay out ten times what ours did. It's not football - it the law. If Andronikou can pay that and stay solvent - as he must in administration - there's not a lot Football can do.
catman1971
10-09-2010, 03:20 PM
the football league are a total disgrace.double standards.help portsmouth,cardiff,and anyone else but when we asked to sign a player on loan last season due to injuries we were told no.disgrace!
CPFC-DIEHARD84
10-09-2010, 03:27 PM
If Portsmouth dont go down, ill be surprised, the players there must be dejected!
brooklynlou
10-09-2010, 03:45 PM
I think the reason they can bring the players in is that they still have a threadbare squad. They would only bring 4 players on the bench.
I believe the reason why they were able to offer the higher salaries is that they have more room on their wage bill considering how few players they have.
Celestial Empire
10-09-2010, 05:56 PM
More to the point, do you think these two crocks will make much difference ?
And they have now used up what little wriggle room they had.:hmph:
Andronikou still thinks they can be promoted this season.:eek:
I think the reason they can bring the players in is that they still have a threadbare squad. They would only bring 4 players on the bench.
I believe the reason why they were able to offer the higher salaries is that they have more room on their wage bill considering how few players they have.
Do Portsmouth have a youth team?
1f96
Man of Kent
10-09-2010, 06:18 PM
With all due respect we can't talk. Whilst we are paying less the CVA for Portsmouth's creditors will pay out ten times what ours did. It's not football - it the law. If Andronikou can pay that and stay solvent - as he must in administration - there's not a lot Football can do.
Point taken, but we're not bringing in players and paying them £19k a week.
brooklynlou
10-09-2010, 06:28 PM
Do Portsmouth have a youth team?
According to the interwebs they have 5 reserve players and 20 or so 15 and 16 yo academy players.
Do we take it that Portsmouth's football debts have been settled in full?
Pistol Knight
10-09-2010, 06:40 PM
I feel sad really because the way they are being handled in Admin is a disgrace, more should be done (from outside football, purley buissness assessed(NOT football administrator firms)) I cannot see how there crappy ground, faithfull and loyal support (they are good supporters) can pay off their creidtors and pay the wages, I'm not the new Allan Sugar, but even I can see it's heading for collapse, I feel sorry for all concerned down there.
GodstoneEagle
10-09-2010, 06:54 PM
I feel sad really because the way they are being handled in Admin is a disgrace, more should be done (from outside football, purley buissness assessed(NOT football administrator firms)) I cannot see how there crappy ground, faithfull and loyal support (they are good supporters) can pay off their creidtors and pay the wages, I'm not the new Allan Sugar, but even I can see it's heading for collapse, I feel sorry for all concerned down there.
pitiful attendance for their game against us the other week.
Pistol Knight
10-09-2010, 07:11 PM
Yes but I think even they realise they are up shi***t creek and have lost all faith :(
I'm glad it bought Palace together
sheepy
11-09-2010, 10:53 AM
I feel sad really because the way they are being handled in Admin is a disgrace, more should be done (from outside football, purley buissness assessed(NOT football administrator firms)) I cannot see how there crappy ground, faithfull and loyal support (they are good supporters) can pay off their creidtors and pay the wages, I'm not the new Allan Sugar, but even I can see it's heading for collapse, I feel sorry for all concerned down there.
I think the administrator has taken the view that there is no way the club will be able to pay off its debts without premierleague football.
They have 3 years of parachute payments which will soften the blow (and as the CVA is based upon these it makes sense to the creditors to see the club continuing to trade for these 3 years in order to recoup their money). Once the parachute payments come to an end, if they haven't secured premiership football they will go out of existence end of hence why the administrator is taking the gamble of paying 20k a year.
They really don't have anything to lose at this point so why not gamble?
The Omen
23-09-2010, 09:04 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/9028698.stm
Makes me laugh. Wasn't it Portsmouth who were behind on payments to clubs?
ChristalPalace
24-09-2010, 01:00 PM
Will they be the first League One club to getting parachute payments from the Premier League? Or has already been a team to fall straight through Division One/The Championship since parachute payments were born? Charlton were relegated while getting their parachute payments, but as it was their second season down they didn't get them last season.
Psychokiller
24-09-2010, 01:04 PM
There's plenty of free agents who could sign for a lot less than £19k/week. The fact that they're signing players on this kind of money is taking the piss.
kolinkins
24-09-2010, 01:10 PM
The authorities had the chance to make an example out of them, but failed to do so.
They need sorting out and punishing, big time.
ChristalPalace
24-09-2010, 01:14 PM
The authorities had the chance to make an example out of them, but failed to do so.
They need sorting out and punishing, big time.
To be honest I think they were trying to make an example out of us, but we slipped through the net at the last second.
wedgetail
24-09-2010, 01:20 PM
"We've been listening to excuses. We've had enough."
The authorities had the chance to make an example out of them, but failed to do so.
They need sorting out and punishing, big time.
I don't think they need to make an example of them, at least punishment wise. But, the FA/FL should have rules in place specifically for clubs in Administration. As mentioned above, it's somewhat criminal that they are paying loan players 20k a week, when they could pick players at a more reasonable rate. It seems to me, like always, the FA/FL still have their heads stuck too far up the rear ends of a few top clubs instead of being an independent body looking out for the good of the whole organization in England.
karl.eldridge
24-09-2010, 01:26 PM
Will they be the first League One club to getting parachute payments from the Premier League? Or has already been a team to fall straight through Division One/The Championship since parachute payments were born? Charlton were relegated while getting their parachute payments, but as it was their second season down they didn't get them last season.
Leeds? Wimbledon?
Celestial Empire
24-09-2010, 02:21 PM
The Prem hierarchy think there are far too many clubs and would be happy with a mass cull (see Broken Dreams).
They must be getting impatient, these "little clubs" just (mostly) refuse to die.
As for Pompey, they must have an awful lot of dirt on Prem clubs and the FA stashed away, to get all this special treatment.
e6c
ChristalPalace
24-09-2010, 03:29 PM
Leeds? Wimbledon?
Leeds spent three years in the Championship and Wimbledon a lot more than that. There are plenty of former Prem clubs in the third tier (Swindon and Oldham and a couple of years ago Forest, while Bradford fell from the Prem to the fourth tier in under a decade), but I'm asking whether one has ever been relegated from the Prem and then relegated again the following season in the Prem era (actually when DID parachute payments come in?)?
chatham_eagle
15-10-2010, 03:03 PM
Another twist in the tale. FL has blocked transfer of 'golden share.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/9093733.stm
Papers (using that term loosely) today reporting that Chanrai may withdraw his offer and they'll go bust.
Celestial Empire
15-10-2010, 03:57 PM
Another twist in the tale. FL has blocked transfer of 'golden share.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/9093733.stm
Papers (using that term loosely) today reporting that Chanrai may withdraw his offer and they'll go bust.
I think Cotterill is setting himself up as a new Ian Holloway.:D
FORZA SELHURST
15-10-2010, 04:52 PM
Cotterill is a numpty.
gold76
15-10-2010, 08:26 PM
Chose the role as a shot too nothing, should have stayed at Notts Co, he got them up & had the goodwill of the fans.
Chester 76
15-10-2010, 09:11 PM
The Prem hierarchy think there are far too many clubs and would be happy with a mass cull (see Broken Dreams).
They must be getting impatient, these "little clubs" just (mostly) refuse to die.
As for Pompey, they must have an awful lot of dirt on Prem clubs and the FA stashed away, to get all this special treatment.
The Premier league is a seperate entity to the football league & currently contains twenty clubs.A number of those clubs would like the Premiership reduced in size as I believe it was originally planned.
Football clubs have been very fortunate so far,the previous time we were in administration I remember an article where a businessman who had been inolved with Swindon said that any other business would have had the plug pulled on them.He listed ourselves as the worst case he had seen at that time! Look at Leeds where if the league had followed their rules,they wouldn`t have allowed Leeds to start the season.Banks are loathe to pull the plug due to the backlash & bad publicity, look at our situation this summer & Liverpool`s this week.
Ultimately as uncomfortable a thought as it is ninety two clubs are too many for a country this size.If football were to be set up now the leagues,cups & season would be in a extremely different format.
vBulletin v3.5.3, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
0