Snak

Problematikken omkring pointstraffe er du fint inde på, og jeg har også fundet en forklaring her:

If you come out of admin via a CVA then there will be no more points deducted. However if you come out not via a CVA (and remember that 75% by value of creditors need to approve it and HMRC always vote against it) then you will get a further deduction - although there is no set amount the unofficial tariff seems to be 15 points for the first administration, 17 points for the 2nd and 20 points for the third.

You could therefore get a further 17 points deducted when you are sold on (if that is not via a CVA). There is also the vexed question as to whether the FL will impose a penalty because you have not complied with (or are about to not comply with) the CVA from the first administration. You are in uncharted territory now but the FL rules certainly allow for further points deductions.

Og ja, George Thorne er tilbage igen på en 28-dages låneaftale, der uden tvivl er kommet i stand igen pga Appleton.

Det ser meget rigtigt ud. FL tilpasser reglerne, så klubberne får den straf, de mener, de bør have - ikke nødvendigvis den, de eksisterende regler siger, de skal have. Det er der efterhånden en god håndfuld klubber, der har fået at føle.

Og selv om jeg - dengang Saints var i admin - ikke satte mig ind i detaljerne og syntes, at Mawhinney og FL var hårde ved Saints, synes jeg i retrospekt, at vores finte ("næh nej, fodboldklubben er ikke konkurs, det er holdingselskabet, der godt nok kun har SFC under sig, der er gået konkurs!") ikke havde fortjent at lykkedes. Det var sq lidt for smart. At Pompey-situationen i praksis er den samme (CSI har reelt set ikke andre aktiver end PFC) er så en anden sag...

Jeg håber på, at FL generelt set kan hjælpe til at opnå en eller anden form for retfærdighed i forhold til at konkurrere på lige vilkår. Pompey er blevet r*vrendt af diverse lånehajer og andet godt, men det er ikke FAPPT, der er problemet - havde den stoppet de seneste købere, var klubben sikkert gået konkurs for flere år siden (hvilket måske så havde været at foretrække ;-)).

Jeg håber, at Pompey klarer skærene, men jeg håber også, at fx det sportslige niveau bliver tilpasset den økonomiske formåen. Find et leje, hvor klubben kan fungere uden at være afhængig af økonomiske indsprøjtninger udefra. Hellere to spillere med £5k i løn end én med £10k, hvilket jo er den tilgang, der har landet klubben med et stærkt førstehold men ingen trup...

Saints var uhyggeligt heldige med Liebherr, men det betyder ikke, at jeg forventer, at vi køber løs uhæmmet. Jeg ville ikke have noget mod, at vi forsøgte at få klubben til at kunne køre rundt, også hvis det var på bekostning af oprykning til PL. Måske er det min opvækst med AaB, der spøger - det sidder bare dybt i baghovedet af mig, at min klub skal have sammenhæng mellem økonomien og det sportslige...

Sorry for det ramble - jeg kan ikke selv huske, hvad det var, jeg ville ud med! ;-)

...det sidder bare dybt i baghovedet af mig, at min klub skal have sammenhæng mellem økonomien og det sportslige...

Jeg er fuldstændig enig og har det på samme måde med PFC.

Og selv om jeg - dengang Saints var i admin - ikke satte mig ind i detaljerne og syntes, at Mawhinney og FL var hårde ved Saints, synes jeg i retrospekt, at vores finte ("næh nej, fodboldklubben er ikke konkurs, det er holdingselskabet, der godt nok kun har SFC under sig, der er gået konkurs!") ikke havde fortjent at lykkedes. Det var sq lidt for smart. At Pompey-situationen i praksis er den samme (CSI har reelt set ikke andre aktiver end PFC) er så en anden sag...

Er forskellen ikke at holdingselskabet var klubbens opfindelse og var en bevidst idé for netop at forhindre selve klubben at gå konkurs/komme under administration? Det er i hvert fald sådan som jeg kan huske at det blev udlagt, altså at klubben ikke var "i god tro" for nu at bruge det udtryk. CSI er ikke PFC´s opfindelse, og jeg mener nu også at de har andre aktiver. Kig f.eks. på deres hjemmeside:

http://www.converssport.com/companies

Den trænger dog til at blive opdateret:

"The business and assets of the Company are now managed by the Administrators. Please note that the Administrators are agents of the Company and act without personal liability. The subsidiaries of Convers Sports Initiatives plc are not subject to an Administration Order." :-)

De andre aktiver har vist sig at være stort set værdiløse, hvilket blev påpeget af en flok googlende Saints fans med for meget tid på hænderne, allerede dengang CSI kom på banen for at overtage Pompey... Det så fint ud med en række af aktiver, men det hele kunne pilles fra hinanden, så det reelt set kun var Pompey, der havde nogen form for værdi...

Men det er en svær situation: på den ene side er Appleton i gang med at plædere for at hente flere spillere ind i den papirtynde trup, og på den anden side begynder konkurrenterne at knurre: http://www.dailymail.co.…zz1mllXGnAR

Hvad vil Birch mon? Det bliver spændende at se...

I er sgu hårdt prøvet nede på sydkysten - føler med Appleton - han har sgu fået kam til sit sparsomme.

@Saint_Lazlo

OK, men trods dette så er CSI altså stadig ikke PFC´s ide, og det er den afgørende forskel. Det er muligt at klubben har været naiv (og i en presset situation) omkring CSI, men den har ikke haft bagtanker med overtagelsen. Vi var jo allerede under administration dengang.

Ja på den måde kan jeg godt se forskellen fra klubbens side. Southampton Leisure Holdings blev opfundet til lejligheden og kun med det ene formål. Meget fikst... lidt for fikst viste det sig ;-)

En supporters øjenvidnerapport fra retten:

I expect of course most if not all of you have by now got the main details from other sources given the number of tweeters/twitters/media attending. I do neither so instead sat and soaked it up but made a few keys notes.

The Question of going into Administration was never in doubt. Having talked to both the Barrister acting for PFC (2010) Ltd (who I knew) and an HMRC legal team member (who it seems knows me off FF) both confirmed that HMRC not opposed to that. Judge confirmed Administration at 11.15 having gone through that part of the application process/evidence etc.

The challenge to AA being appointed was both more interesting and complex. The legal arguments gone into in some depth and detail with various references to case precedents presented.

The Judge made a number of pertinent points including IMO the highly significant one as it turned out (which no one including HMRC or me had considered) regarding the period of trading between 25 November 2011 and the presentation of the WP on 3rd January 2012 during which time the Directors of PFC (2010) had sought advice form AA as Administrator of CSI as to how to continue to trade in light of the funding having been cut off.

He pointed out that up till then the Company had been bleeding money but was being kept solvent by regular cash injections from CSI and that the Directors of PFC (2010) must have known that as of the 25 November they would seriously experience a shortfall . It seemed to him that they were then consciously wrongfully trading. Consequently he couldn´t see how AA could carry out any investigation of an independent nature into such activity as he had been advising.

That IMO was the crucial factor in swinging it away from AA. There were no objections by HMRC on the grounds of any malpractice of issues of conduct etc.

The Judge observed that some Creditors may well have claims against the Directors of PFC (2010) Ltd if it transpires that they continued to trade when knowing the Company was insolvent (wrongful trading - as above) and that would btw include any Directors who have since resigned as under Company Law Directors are held responsible for at least 12 months after resignation.

Other points mentioned brought up (bullet)

1 Concerns as raised by HMRC and other Creditors that AA too close to CSI/BC/Portpin

2 Fact that no accounts had been produced

3 Although letters of concern from PCC and PM read out (mentioning PST) were heard Judge noted they were not Creditors so carried no weight but I think he subconsciously took them on board.

4 Made reference to simple view that sometimes a different view form a new Administrator can be helpful

5 Observed that although secured creditors vote is usually the key sometimes unsecured voice needs to be heard and listened to

That about sums up the principal reasons why AA lost As you can appreciate it was quite difficult to keep concise notes especially as the comings and goings of people in and out made it particularly noisy and I kept getting asked by media to confirm various points /facts being said etc

I would recommend PST getting a copy of the full transcript of the Judges summing up when it becomes available for all BM´s to read and for it to go up on the WS

OTHER INFORMATION that came to light or were already in the public domain in no particular order ;-)

1 Players have agreed in principle to defer wages up to 15% . PFA to cover but will want it back sometime.

2 Under AA new CVA would be 10p and old reduced as well to 10p or maybe less.

3 Indication of possible sale in offing but no disclosure of to who (Judge complained not even to him)

4 Football creditors inc WBA,Wolves, Bristol City

5 HMRC offered Club a deal to pay taxes to avoid the WP being advertised.

6 CSI Directly responsible for cash flow problems.

7 Original WP debt £812,790.00 Only one other creditor owed £12,000 a a supporter

8 Debts now £2m to HMRC £2m to FC and between £6.5 and 16.5 to Old Co under CVA ? .Debenture on New Co dated 7th |January 2012 ??????

9 Company withheld NI/Tax but paid wages for December

10 A facility Letter was provided to the FL confirming that CSI were commiting £18M over 3 years to assist the finances of the Club. HMRC claimed letter signed by Antonov/Dubov and Akers. Disputed by Club who say only Antonov signed it .

Finally before making his decision which he indicated he had already made btw. the Judge tried to get the parties to compromise by agreeing to an order for a Joint Administer ration arrangement. I won´t bother with the details or arguments put etc but suffice to say HMRC opposed.

Den nye administrator er ude med riven efter os, bl.a. netop på grund af for høje lønninger:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/spo…ll/17089723

Hvem overrasker det?

Og så er U-17 landsholdsspilleren Sam Magri taget til Liverpool med henblik på at overbevise klubben der via et træningsophold. Det er sgu lidt surt at miste sine bedste talenter når det er begrænset hvad vi kan få for ham, og det egentlig er løntunge spillere som Kitson, Ben Haim og Lawrence der burde være på vej ud.