newhaven seagull 85
SELDOM IN NEWHAVEN
- Dec 3, 2006
- 963
you can now see hmrc getting really shitty with all football clubs and once payment is overdue by more than 30 days they will probably go straight to a winding up order.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Portsmouth in Court - the Verdict
- Thread starter Braders
- Start date
seven stands
New member
do they have to get out of admin in 1 day to not lose points as its the football league now and not the prem ? or am i just dreaming
Ecosse Exile
New member
Mr Justice Mann said: 'I find that none of the five heads of attack by HMRC amount to unfiar prejudice nor have they been materially affected.
'In my view, HMRC will not be worse off by the situation left by the CVA bearing in mind what the alternatives could be for the club.
'Those alternatives are liquidation, or expulsion from the Football League or worse, bearing in mind the loss of a lot of their assets.'
But the alternatives for the club are not your fuckin problem m'lord.
They owe all of us £37 million.
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
It wouldn't matter because the FL would allow them special dispensation because of the court case.
Mr Justice Mann said: 'I find that none of the five heads of attack by HMRC amount to unfiar prejudice nor have they been materially affected.
'In my view, HMRC will not be worse off by the situation left by the CVA bearing in mind what the alternatives could be for the club.
'Those alternatives are liquidation, or expulsion from the Football League or worse, bearing in mind the loss of a lot of their assets.'
You see. now it's all coming out.
I've said before that we couldn't comment on the situation as we're only hearing snippets but this judgment seems to setting out a bit more detail. If, as this implies,. the HMRC case was solely about Portsmouth and what the taxpayer could get from it, then I'm not surprised it lost.
As I said, I always thought that Portsmouth would win the case as it would take a bold judge to rock the boat. I thought it would go to appeal though and be a close call - but it sounds like the HMRC case is fundamentally flawed.
It does mean that football clubs can avoid tax but, as I said in a post a couple of months ago, I think it would need primary legislation to fix that. I'd like to see HMRC become preferred creditors when companies go bust but if that doesn't happen (and let's face it, a Tory government is not exactly going to bust a gut putting reins on dodgy businessmen) well see a lot more of clubs getting away with it.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Exactly.
Fact is, Pompey will be receiving £42m over the next 3 years from the Premier League in parachute payments - every last PENNY of that cash should be going towards HMRC and their other creditors, with the remainder of the debt benig fully serviced over however long it takes to pay it all back.
As we know full well though, that parachute money will all be pissed up the wall in transfer fees and players wages.
This f***ing REEKS.
A small part of me is pleased as it keeps John Keeley in a job, but the whole thing also borders on farce, if this was a construction company or a large manufacturer with the same kind of debts to the taxman they would go to the wall, football clubs appear to be a protected species, as a football fan that's not a bad thing but how long will this go on for?
If HMRC manage to shut one club down, and remove the stigma of the axe falling, will that be the first of many?
If HMRC manage to shut one club down, and remove the stigma of the axe falling, will that be the first of many?
Ecosse Exile
New member
But Harty this now acts as a precedent, how are HMRC ever going to manage to shut one club down?
I do find this mock indignation about the Portsmouth situation amusing. People fire off hate messages to football forums but then when will happily send Sky money so that they, in turn, can send the Prem League money to send on to Portsmouth. I really don't see how anyone can say the situation sucks or reeks (or whatever) when the contribute money to Portsmouth.
If people felt really strongly about it, they'd write to Sky cancelling their subscriptions because of the parachute payments to Portsmouth. If enough people did that, Sky would notice and so would the Prem. But people don't really feel strongly about it, so they won't and Portsmouth will carry on raking the cash.
If people felt really strongly about it, they'd write to Sky cancelling their subscriptions because of the parachute payments to Portsmouth. If enough people did that, Sky would notice and so would the Prem. But people don't really feel strongly about it, so they won't and Portsmouth will carry on raking the cash.
seven stands
New member
Quite a lot of us don't have Sky subscriptions. The only money I give to the Premier League will be through Brighton & Hove Albion, should we ever get there.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,827
i think the judgment is based on the idea that if they go bust HMRC get nothing more. as it stands they will get at least 20% of whats owed, so thats a better option. the fact they arent appealing suggests they know there is a weakness in the approach they have taken this time.
but i think they will be back.
but i think they will be back.
I know not everyone has Sky - I don't on principle but plenty of people do - including people who are saying that it's a disgrace that Portsmouth got away with it.
Barnham Seagull
Yapton Actually
Sky paying money for TV rights has nothing to do with a business spending beyond it's means and cheating the Tax Man.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
So Portmouths thieving should dictate whether or not I can have Sky Sports at home ? I don't quite get the connection. I want to watch the Ashes and the Ryder Cup as well.
Sky provide a product I enjoy, but I'm powerless about where my subscription fee goes. Some of it goes to Palace as well, and a bit of it even finds its way to the Albion (quite a nice chunk in October for the Bournemouth game). Should I withhold my cash from them as well ?
I can't stand Alan Green, but some of my licence fee goes in his back pocket. How far can you go with this ?
HampshireSeagulls
Moulding Generation Z
And they are all such wonderful fans (TM) that only 6600 of them turned up for Linvoy Primus' testimonial. At the risk of being banned, I hope they all die of a f***ing nasty terminal disease and their estates are seized to pay the tax debt of the club they would "die for". Wankers, wankers, wankers.
And I don't have Sky, so f*** off.
And I don't have Sky, so f*** off.
Agreed.
Much as Sky money has been responsible for the absurd wages in the top flight, it is not their concern how their TV money is distributed within the game. This shambles is firmly at the door of the FA and the individual clubs.
There is FAR more to Sky than Premiership football - even on the Sports channels. I'm a Sky subscriber and I am disgusted by Portsmouth and I don't seen any contradiction in that. As you don't get Sky Sports you wouldn't know that Premiership football is only a part of it's output; contrary to popular belief it's not all wall-to-wall Man U on all four channels. Even though it's available I don't even watch the Premiership, and no, that's not the same as saying you only buy Playboy for the articles.
EDIT: And it's not 'mock indignation' I'm feeling - it's very real.
ANOTHER EDIT: And how is it Sky's fault that Portsmouth are in debt? They don't tell them what to spend the money on.
Last edited:
BensGrandad
New member
I have sky because I cannot get Virgin Media in Haywards Heath and I want the facility of presetting and recording programs and all the other facilities that Sky + give my wife and I but I still object to sky paying parchute payments to football clubs when they are relegated, whether it be Portsmouth or any othert team but what can I as anindividual do about it, absolutely nothing. To cancel my subscription would be like cutting off my nose to spite my face. I have already cancelled Sky Sports so that that money doesnt go to the Premier League teams.