|HALL RIGHT NOW: The 100 questions Portpin need to answer... Part 7|
Mon 08th Oct 2012 22:55 by Micah Hall
Since Portpin's arrival on the Pompey scene, the longer they hang around, the more questions there are. Here's the latest batch Portpin fail to answer, despite being given every opportunity to do so.
After Portpin's decision to appoint Tavistock Communications as their PR company, we at least have someone to ask the questions of. I have so far collected in excess of 100 questions suggested by inquisitive Pompey fans. If there's a question you want us to ask, please send it email@example.com and we'll try to ask it. I have now sent four batches totalling 70 questions to Tavistock and I publish their 'reponses' below.
The answers so far remain none too illuminating of course. However, I will continue to ask the questions and publish the reponse at approximately ten at a time.
Click here to read questions 1-13 sent to Portpin and their responses, here to read questions 14-23, here to read questions 24-33, here to read questions 34-44, here to read questions 45-54, here to read questions 55-70
71. Given the fact that Portsmouth FC had administrators for Vantis in the building preparing for administration when the loan was made, the club was notorious for having huge debts, a winding up order was in place, and given Mr Chainrai's acknowledgement that no one else would loan the club money, what persuaded Portpin to make this loan? Portpin declined to comment.
72. Given the failure to repay this loan, why did Portpin make further loans? Portpin declined to comment.
73. Given the sleepless nights Portpin claimed to be having during this period over how they were going to recover their money, why did they not ask Mr Jacob, their solicitor, who was in charge of the finances and how the loan would be repaid? Portpin declined to comment.
74. Will Portpin release the detailed accounts from their Fuglers Bank account to an independent forensic accountant to verify their claim that the money went into Portsmouth FC and was used for the benefit of the club? Portpin declined to comment.
75. What was the precise investment into PCFC by Portpin that allowed the fixed and floating charges to be placed? Portpin declined to comment.
76. Who were the legal representatives for each of the three parties (Portpin, Falcondrone, PCFC) involved in agreeing the charge? Portpin declined to comment.
77. Who were the legal signatories for each of the three companies who agreed and signed off the 6th October 2009 charge against PCFC Ltd? Portpin declined to comment.
78. Between the 6th October 2009 and 7th January 2010, further actions were taken regarding PCFC Ltd including an HMRC petition for insolvency lodged in the High Court. On the 7th January 2010, a fixed and floating charge for £17m was registered against PCFC Ltd by Portpin with the agreement of Falcondrone over all assets and activities of Portsmouth Football Club. What legal advice was sought and given to each of the three parties involved with regards to the HMRC petition for insolvency against PCFC Ltd and by whom was it provided? Portpin declined to comment.
79. Who were the legal representatives for each of the three parties (Portpin, Falcondrone, PCFC) involved in agreeing the charge? Portpin declined to comment.
80. Who were the legal signatories for each of the three companies who agreed and signed off the 7th January 2010 charge against PCFC Ltd? Portpin declined to comment.
81. Between the 7th January 2010 and 26th February 2010, there were transfers of monies out of PCFC totalling approx. £5.5m consisting of two authorised payments by PCFC to Portpin of £2m apiece and unauthorised transfer of £1.5m to other parties as stated before Justice Norris on 26th February 2010. This occurred despite the restrictions placed over PCFC by the insolvency petition lodged by HMRC. Did these transfer of monies conflict with the legal advice given regarding the HMRC petition? Portpin declined to comment.
82. Who were the legal signatories requesting the payments? Portpin declined to comment.
83. Who were the legal signatories approving the payments? Portpin declined to comment.
84. Who was responsible for the transfer of the unauthorised payments? Portpin declined to comment.
85. Did the £4m payments to Portpin exceed their investment into PCFC between the 7th October 2009 and 26th February 2010 and what is the comparison between these figures? Portpin declined to comment.
I have sent the final batch of 15 or so questions to Tavistock and hopefully I will be able to bring you some answers to those on Tuesday.
The views of Micah Hall are his own and don't necessarily reflect the editorial view of pompey-fans.com. Any proceeds of this column are donated to Action Aid.
The Pompey Supporters' Trust is still seeking pledges from Pompey fans to back their bid. Information can be found here