Pompey: The £800,000 Question

You may also like...

16 Responses

  1. Fragrant Harbour says:

    Re: floating charge.

    If what Micah Hall states is correct here:


    then this charge is of questionable validity. This is presumably what is being argued between Portpin and PKF. If PKF are reasonably sure of this not being valid then why not just test it in court? If they are not so sure about the charge being invalid then this is the sticking point.

    Portpin can hold out for whatever they desire in order to lift the charge even though they wouldn’t pass a Fit and Proper Person Test. So PKF are left unable to sell the club to a buyer who would actually be able to take control. Madness if so.

  2. mick says:

    Of course, the answer to the question is – as ever with Administrators – the £000’s per hour they are paying themselves. Every penny honest Pompey fans hand over ends up in the pockets of T.Birch esq.

    Just say no – walk away, find a ground and start again. Make your money work for you, not a userer.

  3. Mike says:

    A great article, well written and easy to understand. The Trust deserve to be applauded, I hope it won’t be long before they take rightful ownership and we can leave all this behind and start concentrating on the football. Wouldn’t that be good.

  4. Terry says:

    Re: Floating charge

    If it is true that the Administrators had overlooked the Floating charge over the assets of the club then they should be liable for the continued Administrators costs over the additional time that this oversight has caused in reaching a conclusion. As professionals they cannot profit from such oversights and continue to claim their high levels of fees and costs during this additional period.

  5. Dinksy says:

    Who lobbied for the appointment of PKF? HMRC.
    People forget that.
    We did them over the Football Creditors and missed payments now it’s payback time.

  6. Dinksy says:

    …and thank you for this illuminating article. It shames the feeble depth of coverage undertaken by lazy ‘professionals’ at the Portsmouth News.

  7. Gaz says:

    If the floating charge of £2m is based on the ‘business’ of PFC2010, which has already been demonstrated to be a failed business and is months away from liquidation, my question is that surely this charge is virtually worthless?

  8. Pete says:

    Thanks for the article. Can you explain how the new share structure would work following the takeover? The trust has currently raised c.£800k to £1m. The HNWs have put in £800k to cover the running costs that will be converted into equity. Is that sum in addition to the money they pledged for their share of the new business, or is that an advance on the sum pledged? I only ask as surely if that is in addition, then the trusts shareholding must be diluted. A related question. If the original plan was for the trust to have (I think the figure was 25%) when they raised £2m, what would happen to the share percentage if the trust failed to raise the target figure?

  9. tax payers pay says:

    why is the public purse subsidising the survival of a 3 times bankrupt firm?

    if the deal goes tits up – will all the funding be lost?

    ‘lets close a hospital to save pompey rar rar rar’

    there are far more deserving causes than a bancrupt football club

    close it down


  10. Simon says:

    An Administrator can sell floating charge assets without the chargeholder’s consent under insolvency law, but he can’t do the same with fixed charge assets, hence the Court application only needs to deal with the fixed charge ie Fratton Park.

  11. SJMaskell says:

    Thanks Simon. But doesn’t a floating charge crystalise to a fixed charge if a default occurs – which is the case here. CSI defaulted on payment of purchase price of PFC on which a charge was held by Portpin. Does this not make a difference to the value of the asset to be sold – the asset being PFC and Fratton Park? Therefore making it germane to the case?

  12. SJMaskell says:

    @ Tax payers pay.

    The purchase of the club is not being subsidised from the public purse. The Trust will be LOANED money by the Council and will repay with interest. The public purse will, in fact, make a profit on the deal.

  13. SJMaskell says:

    @ Pete

    I can’t give you exact figures of the bid as that is subject to NDA. But the Trust has raised over £1m in funds for community shares and is on track to own 51% of the club – which has always been the intention.

  14. Sandra Mangle says:

    I gather PKF capped their fees at £2.5m some time ago Terry. If so there is more to the delays than increasing their bill.

  1. February 1, 2013

    […] Pompey: The £800,000 question – from Two Hundred Percent's SJ Maskell: Actually that hasn’t stopped some. […]

  2. February 3, 2013

    […] leave that aside for now for others to comment on such as the excellent SJ Maskell has done in her latest blog, but there’s one issue outlined in this narrative where exasperated just doesn’t cut it – […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>