Pay Up Pompey,Pompey Pay Up!

[pauld]

Portsmouth fans knew they were spending beyond their means but they didn't question it whilst it bought them success.

Quite possibly but it's well-known pretty much every club at that level overspends. No-one (including the various owners and the current administrator in the first month or so) knew quite how out of control Portsmouth had got, the sheer scale of it is breathtaking. How were Pompey fans supposed to know it had gone from "common or garden unsustainable PL business model" to "spiralled completely out of control over the cliff to doom" if even the club's own board/accounts people/owners didn't?

[pauld]

Maybe I went a bit too far with that statement, but one thing for certain, the one person who should've known, was a certain Peter Storrie, but he was seemingly too interested in picking up his win bonuses like the players.

It's hardly Pompey fans' fault that Storrie's an arsehole is it? That's like blaming us for anything Diamandis got up to behind everyone's backs

[Nemo]

I blame you for Diamandis Paul. Supervillains thrive on adversity, if you'd have piped down a bit everything would have been fine.

[pauld]

I blame you for Diamandis Paul. Supervillains thrive on adversity, if you'd have piped down a bit everything would have been fine.

Sorry. I did stop short of hitting the big red self-destruct button in his secret island hideaway, if that helps.

[thedarkprince]

I can't believe he actually thinks that HMRC will just let this go if they don't manage to block the CVA. There will just be more legal challenges and more delays, quite possibly resulting in Portsmouth starting next season with another points penalty.

There would only be another points penalty if Portsmouth leave administration without a CVA in place so it doesn't matter how long this drags out.

Edit:  ok, conflicting reports on this.  Does anyone know for sure?

[land_of_bo]

I'm bored of this now. Can't they just be wound up please.

[thedarkprince]

Interesting to see only the HMRC and Paul Hart voted against it. 

[tans]

Cotterill new manager on a 3 yr deal

good luck with that

[jonny72]

Looks like the "voting pool" was about £130m which ties in with HMRC's £24m equalling 18.5% of the votes. I thought it was only the unsecured creditors that got to vote but the £130m figure suggests everyone got to, which seems strange.

HMRC have got a month to appeal and they've already separately started a new court case against the football creditors getting paid in full rule. Bearing in mind the state of the government finances and projects in the tens of millions being cancelled to save money, it's difficult to see that HMRC have any option but to pursue it in the courts.

[pauld]

Looks like the "voting pool" was about £130m which ties in with HMRC's £24m equalling 18.5% of the votes. I thought it was only the unsecured creditors that got to vote but the £130m figure suggests everyone got to, which seems strange.

It is only unsecured creditors that get to vote. The voting amount was around £105m, still not enough for HMRC to get 25% with £24m. There's been a lot of inaccurate reporting on this from sports journos who don't understand CVAs/administration procedures.

EDIT: unless the total debt has somehow increased AGAIN of course

[jonny72]

It is only unsecured creditors that get to vote. The voting amount was £105m, still not enough for HMRC to get 25%. There's been a lot of inaccurate reporting on this from sports journos who don't understand CVAs/administration procedures.

The votes against were just under 19%, which doesn't tie up with HMRC being owed £24m and a voting pool of £105m. There was also some creditors owed millions that didn't vote, surely these would go in the against column wouldn't they as the rule is 75% votes in favour - which would increase the votes against.

It's ridiculous that something which is governed by a strict set of rules could be such a fucking mess, with no one seemingly knowing the actual and correct figures.

[Doore]

It's ridiculous that something which is governed by a strict set of rules could be such a fucking mess, with no one seemingly knowing the actual and correct figures.

Agreed.

[pauld]

The votes against were just under 19%, which doesn't tie up with HMRC being owed £24m and a voting pool of £105m. There was also some creditors owed millions that didn't vote, surely these would go in the against column wouldn't they as the rule is 75% votes in favour - which would increase the votes against.

It's ridiculous that something which is governed by a strict set of rules could be such a fucking mess, with no one seemingly knowing the actual and correct figures.

Yeah, fuck knows. None of the quoted figures add up. For example, the local Portsmouth paper today is reporting

If HMRC had been allowed to vote using the weight of its £37m claims, it would have had 25.2 per cent of the vote - just enough to cause the CVA proposal to fail

which would make the total debt somewhere north of £150m.

Brighton Red, HELP!

[BrightonRed]

Brighton Red, HELP!

Haven't had a chance to look into it yet but on the basis of what I've seen there would have had to be some fairly hefty figure manipulation to get the proposal through. I’ll look into it a little later on!

[Summerof69]

Haven't had a chance to look into it yet but on the basis of what I've seen there would have had to be some fairly hefty figure manipulation to get the proposal through.

I cannot believe AA would do such a thing !!!