Portsmouth - We are not done...just yet...
UK time is: 21:13:56
Vital Login
Social Login

Choose your club

Other Sites

Network Navigation

Vital Partners

'If It's Football, It's Vital'

We are not done...just yet...

Details of what had developed last night were pretty sketchy for me - I was travelling to Pompey on the train, and as such my t'internet connection is pretty weak.

Although, from what I could gather our CVA proposal had been thrown into chaos and seemed destined for failure as one of the creditors, HMRC, had got their own insolvency people, Griffin, on the case to propose their own CVA.

They feel that Sacha Gaydamak's claim for £32m should be dropped, trading insolvent should remove his right to make his claim - in fact he will be hunted down for an amount of £50m or so, and creditors should be offered a better deal than the one they had, something like 65p up to as much as 99p in the £, depending on Gaydamak's payment.

With this development my first though was that we had no chance of the other unsecured creditors accepting the 20p in the £ offer if they thought that they had a genuine shot of getting more, and perhaps in all reality rightly so...

It 'seemed' that the HMRC's 'backer' believed that the administrators were working too much in the clubs favour, and not the creditors, as they should be to be fair.

Having the CVA agreed, let alone coming out of administration seemed highly unlikely, in fact starting next season on a minus points total, as much as -19pts and with the transfer embargo STILL in place, not to mention the fact that player contract could basically be 'torn up' left us in a whole heap of trouble from the looks of it.

As I say, my details were sketchy, at best, but the impression I was getting was things were not good, and who said things could get no worse...

That said, on the flip side the common thought is that this is a last ditch 'publicity stunt' attempt by HMRC - who are mighty peeved at football clubs and the way they work - to try and force the hands of people to get them a better deal because at present, I think I am right in saying, they cannot command enough of the unsecured credit (on a proven level) to oppose the 20p in the £ offer, commonly believed to be a 'decent offer' from an administrative point of view, that other creditors appeared happy with.

A creditor thinking they can get more than first offered would, inevitably, be tempted to go for more, who would not?

But in all reality is £20p in the £, which could rise to 25p in the £, to gain a full percentage of money owed for the duration of a 4/5-year period better than a higher amount in the £, but for a shorter time period until we go out of business, not better? And we WOULD go out of business eventually on these repayments now being asked.

Repayment on that level, taking into account it would almost certainly mean relegation again, just would not be sustainable over time - so, as said, the current repayment amount and option surely makes better 'financial sense' to most unsecured creditors, many of them are actually Pompey fans (former owner fans, not fans of the club of course but fans of the money they would get back) so would that not weigh on them too?

By chasing this higher offer, which is thought should be paid; creditors would in effect be signing our death warrant as well as their own, right...

So, whilst it would be foolish to 'dismiss' this threat as a non-starter perhaps getting too carried away by its threat could be something to consider - perhaps I am being too optimistic, a new found optimism all of a sudden, but automatically jumping on the 'we are totally doomed now' bandwagon could be advised against?

Either way it will be a LONG 10-days or so in the lead up to, and the actual taking part in the CVA meeting next week...


For more information about the Vital England predictions league game - click here.

For more information about the Vital England fantasy football game - click here.

Join the Vital Pompey Debate


Click here to join in the debate on the club forum.

The Journalist

Writer: pompeyrug Mail feedback, articles or suggestions

Date:Tuesday June 8 2010

Time: 8:00AM

Your Comments (oldest first)

Change to most recent first
Rug, it just seems to go on and on this saga. You have to question AA's intentions here and I still think he is working on behalf of Chanrai. A nail biting few days in the run up to the CVA meeting.
Report Abuse
08/06/2010 09:00:00

BlueDR, you misunderstand Chan doesn't lose either way, he has a charge on the ground so can walk away with most if not all of his money whenever he wants. The Griffin counter proposal is from an unsecured creditor banking on Sasha Gaydamak walking away from getting his 30 m of money back. Gaydamak will have had legal advice about but hasn't walked yet. Rug my money would still be on a version of AA's proposal for the reasons you state above.
Report Abuse
08/06/2010 09:33:00

I wonder if Mr Lampitt will issue a statement
Report Abuse
08/06/2010 09:36:00

I might be wrong, but I thought the trading whilst insolvent took place after Gaydamak sold the club . . ? And if he doesn't get his money the club can kiss goodbye to the land. I hope you are right Rug, about the creditors seeing sense and realising that they won't get anything if the club goes under, which it will under this proposal.
Report Abuse
08/06/2010 09:38:00

Having just read through the entire Griffin document it looks a bit like pie in the sky. It reckons on us making the best part of 30m in player sales this year and reducing our entire wage bill to less that 5m. The only income we'd get would be through ticket sales and sundries (hospitality, programmes, kit sales). Lets assume 12k for 23 games at an average of 15 per ticket (i'm thinking a fair proportion of kids as most adults would of given up). That comes to about 4.1m plus other sundries maybe taking it up to 5 or maybe 6m and that's the income to run the entire club, players, support staff, maintenance, rates, rent etc. Say we can scrape together 4m for a squad of 20 players that would average less than 4k per player per week. So we'd be starting the season with (probably -10 or 17 points) a massively under strength small squad resulting in relegation and less money coming in and probably administration again in a few years time. I think the existing CVA is a bit low, i'm sure there are large sums in the debts which shouldn't be there or can be removed (like HMRC fines) and if they can convince Gaydamak to toddle off (if there is a chance of something being found against him) maybe we could be offering 40 - 45p in the pound without putting the future of the club at risk.
Report Abuse
08/06/2010 09:55:00

Hang on a sec - something just occurred to me. The HRMC are trying to get Gaydamek out of the picture so that their share of the debt goes above 25% and they can then scupper the CVA completely!
Report Abuse
08/06/2010 10:18:00

Rug I had my legal risk manager look at the Griffin proposal ( as opposed to his real job) and he doesn't think it stands up without creditors expending at real risk lot on a court case. It's down to the creditors but he thinks HMRC have more chance of getting money back from the PL.
Report Abuse
08/06/2010 10:45:00

I cant take it anymore, im gonna concentrate on the world cup for a while!!!!!!
Report Abuse
08/06/2010 10:53:00

sorry, premature post, to finish off; Why would Gaydamak toddle off from 30mil? He will argue that football doesn't operate in the same way as normal business, it is effectively a credit loaning and borrowing scheme and according the the chap on sky sports news today who complies a report for the PL accounts Gaydamak is right. To prove deliberate malpractice by Gaydamak who acted generally in accordance with the standards of the industry ie loans against future possible earnings will be very hard. Secondly he would just bankrupt his business dealings here and transfer his profitable Pizza assets etc to an Isreali holding company where they wont be recovered.
Report Abuse
08/06/2010 10:59:00

I think the point isn't to go after the 50m fine but more to show there's enough possibility that he behaved in a reckless manner that he might chose to cut his losses. This is of course only if there is something in the accounts that shows they acted inappropriately. The main point is were the club trading whilst insolvent whilst under his reign, if they were - which seems if not likely then at least plausible - then he's broken basic business law in the UK.
Report Abuse
08/06/2010 11:21:00

agreed with your premise stooH, however he, SuchaGaydacrook ( lol ive no idea where that came from ?) will have known all along about the risk and he hasnt bolted yet. Additionally as i posted above according to SSN earlier football basically trades teams on an insolvent basis so proving that he is doing differently and therefore wrongly is an expensive and risky thing. If i was gaydacrook i would be prepared to speculate and spend 1mill on legal fees to get 30+ mill back.
Report Abuse
08/06/2010 12:27:00

but it's not 30+ mill it's only 20% of that (6m) although that's still a decent sum. I guess it's risk/reward to him - go to jail potentially versus 6m. The fact that they want to liquidate oldco once newco is setup makes me think that they suspect there is something there to be investigated.
Report Abuse
08/06/2010 13:58:00

Stooh, isnt he a football creditor, and thus entitled to the full whack?????
Report Abuse
08/06/2010 19:09:00

The way football creditors get such preferential treatment is a complete nonsense. Not just the whole whack even after a CVA has been agreed, but also the way their debts have to be settled first. And its part of the problem.
Report Abuse
09/06/2010 14:40:00

totally tracy, if EVERYONE was on the same playing field we would not have these drama's. i know some 'small' football clubs would go under perhaps if they were not assured the full amount but some 'small' businesses will aswell because they will not. it should be the same rule for ALL, altho football seems to be above the law these days!
Report Abuse
10/06/2010 09:22:00


Have Your Say

Log in...
with your social network     OR     with your Vital account

Recent Portsmouth Articles

Match highlights - Wycombe 2-2 Pompey (Sunday November 29 2015)

On this day in history...29th November (Sunday November 29 2015)

Cook after Wycombe (Saturday November 28 2015)

Stats: Wycombe Wanderers v Pompey (Saturday November 28 2015)

Adams Park team sheets - Wycombe v Pompey (Saturday November 28 2015)

Do us a favour Dunne! (Saturday November 28 2015)

On this day in history...28th November (Saturday November 28 2015)

Wycombe (a) - More of the same! (Friday November 27 2015)

L2 round-up after Pompey 6-0 York (Friday November 27 2015)

Archived Portsmouth Articles

List All Vital Pompey Articles
Have your say
Click here to suggest an article
Click here to suggest a poll
ScoopDragon Publishing Entire League Network of Sites

Vital Members League (view all)

1. pompeyrug 111
2. storagematt 52
3. Et_tu_Pompeii 40
4. Copnor43 24
5. FrattonBlue 24
6. Pompeytim 22
7. pompeyweller 17
8. mslorna48 13
9. Emsworthianblue 12
10. Jimsmithswig 10

League Results (view all)

League Table (view table)

Team P W D L GD Pts
2. Plymouth 20 12 4 4 14 40
3. Northampton 20 12 4 4 10 40
4. Accrington 19 10 5 4 12 35
5. Portsmouth 20 8 10 2 15 34
6. Carlisle 20 9 6 5 2 33
7. Mansfield 20 9 5 6 10 32
8. Leyton Orient 20 8 7 5 5 31

Portsmouth Fixtures (view all)

Breaking League News

League 2 - Northampton 2-0 Yeovil
Northampton : 29/11/2015 17:47:00
League 2 - Carlisle 3-1 Crawley
Carlisle : 29/11/2015 17:42:00
Match Day Officials v Dagenham
Morecambe : 29/11/2015 17:37:01
League 2 - Barnet 1-3 Mansfield
Barnet : 29/11/2015 17:36:00
L2 - Stevenage 4-3 Morecambe
Stevenage : 29/11/2015 16:28:00

Current Site Poll (view all polls)

Wycombe MotM
Suggested By:  VitalPompey
Murphy 1%
Davies 0%
Burgess 0%
Webster 33%
Stevens 33%
Doyle 0%
Hollands 0%
McGurk 0%
McNulty 33%
Bennett 0%
Lavery 0%
Sub:-Barton 0%
Sub:-Evans 0%
Sub:-Tollitt 0%