Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Portsmouth in Court - the Verdict

So

  • Liquidation

    Votes: 16 15.7%
  • Administration

    Votes: 28 27.5%
  • Nothing

    Votes: 36 35.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 2.9%
  • Lets all laugh at Portsmouth , Lets all laugh at Portsmouth la,la,la,la ,la ,la ,la, la

    Votes: 19 18.6%

  • Total voters
    102


Uncle Buck

Ghost Writer
Jul 7, 2003
28,071
Portsmouth tell court that rivals wanted club to go under for TV cash

Portsmouth's Premier League rivals pushed for the club to be liquidated in mid-season in order to share the television money they were due, the high court heard yesterday.

Portsmouth are in court to defend themselves against the taxman's challenge to the company voluntary arrangement proposed by the administrator, Andrew Andronikou. And shortly after beginning his evidence Richard Sheldon, Portsmouth's counsel in yesterday's action, claimed: "The other [Premier League] clubs wanted to let Portsmouth go to the wall and to divide the television monies amongst themselves."

The FA Cup finalists were rescued from bankruptcy only when the Premier League advanced millions of pounds to Pompey so they could meet otherwise unaffordable short-term liabilities. And Sheldon said it was only an intervention from the League's chief executive, Richard Scudamore, that prevented Portsmouth from going bust. In the event, all clubs received a payment of approximately £2m from the League's central pot, equal to the sum advanced to Pompey in February.

A further sum is believed to have been paid up front to Pompey once their relegation was confirmed. Sheldon's extraordinary allegation underlines the fact that the cut-throat nature of competition between Premier League clubs extends beyond the pitch and into the boardrooms. But all clubs are united in their opposition to the taxman's central argument in court yesterday, which is that the football-creditors rule is unjust and should be abolished. Under the football-creditors rule, all players and clubs receive 100p in the pound on any debt they are owed, whereas ordinary creditors receive a fraction of their dues.

Football's justification for the rule is that without it their competitions would be unbalanced, since otherwise-solvent clubs could be forced to the wall due to another's financial collapse, potentially causing havoc to fixture lists throughout the pyramid. Greg Mitchell, counsel for HMRC, set out the taxman's challenge to the proposed CVA, under which the taxman would lose 80% of what it is owed by the relegated club.

When asked by Mr Justice Mann what alternative HMRC would propose, Mitchell responded that it would not include differential treatment of football creditors and ordinary creditors.
 




Collar Feeler

No longer feeling collars
Jul 26, 2003
1,322
The other bonus when they go bust is that all the Pompey supporters west of the county can come and watch the Albion instead and help us fill up the Amex! :laugh:
 


bhaexpress

New member
Jul 7, 2003
27,627
Kent
An important point was made by a footy columnist in one of the papers, if Pompey have avoided paying the HMRC £37 million in tax, that is £37 million that can't be spent on schools, police and other such things because they have been frivolously spunking it away on all and sundry. That is unacceptable and I hope the court see it that way and send them into liquidation, it'll serve them right. I just feel sorry for the pompey fans who have no control over this whole sorry saga.

Exactly. it's money out of everybody's pockets isn't it ?
 


HampshireSeagulls

Moulding Generation Z
Jul 19, 2005
5,264
Bedford
Do you want Pompey supporters to change allegiance? You should see them on their websites - trying desperately to concoct a scenario where they walk away scot free, continually forgetting that this is a business, not a football club, that has been taken to court for fraudulent evasion of tax and deliberately trying to manipulate a situation so that HMRC is deprive of money - our money. They gloated at Southampton when it happened, now they are crying in their piss poor beer because it has happened to them. They want the judge to take their history into consideration when making a judgement, which is totally irrelevant. They want the previous owners brought to court instead - they forget it is the business, not the individual being charged. They want everyone else charged as well - welcome to the world of the test case, Pompey. They hate the Premier League and are glad they were relegated because of all the nasty bullies who hated them. Well, when you play in a piss pot stadium with no improvements around the corner, cover all the stands except the away end, have fans who think they are all members of the 6:57 (when in fact 90% of them can't tell the time anyway) and continually harp on about being the "best fans in the country" - then yes, people get fed up with you and might, just might, revel in your downfall.
 


itszamora

Go Jazz Go
Sep 21, 2003
7,282
London
Portsmouth's entire argument, rather than using facts and evidence (probably because it's all against them) does seem to be entirely composed of, "but if you find against us, we'll be liquidated." So what? The survival of a company, even a football club, should not come at the expense of the public purse. Not that I think a ruling against them would liquidate the club anyway.
 




looney

Banned
Jul 7, 2003
15,652
I would question how and why HMCR allowed the debt owed to get so large. £37 million?

If its small change then pay it, if its not then what the fucks going on?
 




Do you want Pompey supporters to change allegiance? You should see them on their websites - trying desperately to concoct a scenario where they walk away scot free, continually forgetting that this is a business, not a football club, that has been taken to court for fraudulent evasion of tax and deliberately trying to manipulate a situation so that HMRC is deprive of money - our money. They gloated at Southampton when it happened, now they are crying in their piss poor beer because it has happened to them. They want the judge to take their history into consideration when making a judgement, which is totally irrelevant. They want the previous owners brought to court instead - they forget it is the business, not the individual being charged. They want everyone else charged as well - welcome to the world of the test case, Pompey. They hate the Premier League and are glad they were relegated because of all the nasty bullies who hated them. Well, when you play in a piss pot stadium with no improvements around the corner, cover all the stands except the away end, have fans who think they are all members of the 6:57 (when in fact 90% of them can't tell the time anyway) and continually harp on about being the "best fans in the country" - then yes, people get fed up with you and might, just might, revel in your downfall.


Despite having several pompey supporting mates who I rather like ^ This.
 




bhaexpress

New member
Jul 7, 2003
27,627
Kent
I would question how and why HMCR allowed the debt owed to get so large. £37 million?

If its small change then pay it, if its not then what the fucks going on?

I think you'll find that they have been fobbing off HMRC for some time and I expect part of the bill is interest. Mind you HMRC are not the most efficient of Civil Servants which has a lot to do with it I'm sure.
 


Barrel of Fun

Abort, retry, fail
One... two...

140761363.jpg
 






seagullsovergrimsby

#cpfctinpotclub
Aug 21, 2005
43,879
Crap Town
I would question how and why HMCR allowed the debt owed to get so large. £37 million?

If its small change then pay it, if its not then what the fucks going on?

Premiership players are on obscene wages so the income tax and national insurance bills will be obscene too. It wouldn't take too long for it to build up to £37M with penalty charges added on for non payment.
 


I have been following bit of it although I didn't know about the alleged mis-representation

but are they not also being challengedon how they handled image rights of players, allowing the club and players to avoid income tax and ni contributions?
 






looney

Banned
Jul 7, 2003
15,652
Premiership players are on obscene wages so the income tax and national insurance bills will be obscene too. It wouldn't take too long for it to build up to £37M with penalty charges added on for non payment.

I can see that, personally I think if a company is having that sort of turn over they can be held to tougher standards, after all most of their income comes in big lumps in a short time period, season tickets sales, advertising revenue. Its not exactly week by week accounting for these types of businesses.
 


itszamora

Go Jazz Go
Sep 21, 2003
7,282
London
I have been following bit of it although I didn't know about the alleged mis-representation

but are they not also being challengedon how they handled image rights of players, allowing the club and players to avoid income tax and ni contributions?

They are, although the main thrust of HMRC's argument seems to be that they, like football creditors, should have preferred creditor status and be paid in full under the terms of any CVA.
 


Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 15, 2008
31,921
Brighton
Greatest fans in the world and those two are the (only?) ones that get photographed
 


HampshireSeagulls

Moulding Generation Z
Jul 19, 2005
5,264
Bedford
I have been following bit of it although I didn't know about the alleged mis-representation

but are they not also being challengedon how they handled image rights of players, allowing the club and players to avoid income tax and ni contributions?

They are being challenged on how they paid players image rights money directly to offshore accounts to avoid PAYE on them, in addition to avoiding other tax duties. They have a raft of accusations being levelled at them at the moment, any one of which would have seen an individual or a "normal" company hauled over the coals.

What could be even funnier is that if they come out of this and Chanrai owns them, he owns the stadium. However, he and Gaydamak hate each other, and Gaydamak owns the surrounding land. Rights of access, anyone? I think groundsharing with H&W would be best...
 




seagullsovergrimsby

#cpfctinpotclub
Aug 21, 2005
43,879
Crap Town
I have been following bit of it although I didn't know about the alleged mis-representation

but are they not also being challengedon how they handled image rights of players, allowing the club and players to avoid income tax and ni contributions?

If HMRC wins the case it will set a precedent for all major sports as it will end a tax avoidance loophole.
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here