slystallone Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 I think if the tax goes over 25% of debt, HMRC will happily see any club liquidated. They won't care that they won't get a penny - they'll use it to show some muscle. The bigger the club the better. NB. Portsmouth was an odd one, as it involved valuation of the club, parachute payments and a claim against the legality of 100% footballing payments all done in one go. The likelihood of legal precedent following on from that case must be dubious. I know the Pompy case was a mixed up; messy one – as I think it involved ownership issues between Gaydamark & Chanerri (spl?), as well as the debt owed to creditors; including HMRC. I just happen to think that because they (Pompy) were allowed to walk away and exit the CVT still with outstanding issues unresolved, a president has been set. If the book is thrown at Sheffield Weds; they would surely mount a legal case and cite the way Pompy were dealt with as the main example as to why they shouldn’t be wound up themselves. Either way; it’s a messy situation – and one that will probably happen more frequently IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted November 17, 2010 Author Share Posted November 17, 2010 (edited) #swfc want 28 days 2 finalise takeover with local group (Fearn), HMRC say no as they r owed £1.4m in tax, interest + fines from twitter. Edited November 17, 2010 by LaticsLee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted November 17, 2010 Author Share Posted November 17, 2010 #swfc claim senior tax official OKed adjournment last night, tax press office denies this + says they'll stick 2 their guns bbc twitter these are from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted November 17, 2010 Author Share Posted November 17, 2010 (edited) #swfc Co-op brief said if judge not minded 2 grant more time, they want short adjournment 2 appoint administrators quicker to edit #swfc lawyers seem relaxed but CEO Parker is fuming about bank's stance Edited November 17, 2010 by LaticsLee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted November 17, 2010 Author Share Posted November 17, 2010 #swfc hearing case now! Co-op now support club's request for 28 days. Taxman sticking to hard line Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted November 17, 2010 Author Share Posted November 17, 2010 #swfc get 28 days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 #swfc get 28 days Sounds about right... Not surprised at all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Sounds about right... Not surprised at all... me neither. Probably won't even go into administration either and will be throwing money about again in January. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Take That Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 The difference between us and Sheffield Wednesday is that whereas SW have spent money that they didn't have and then couldn't afford to pay when the bills became due, OAFC's owners set budgets, knew that income was below outgoings and voluntarily put funds in to the club in the form of a loan which they knew that they may or not get back so that when the bills become due the money to pay them was there. The risk is with OAFC's shareholders not the taxman. However we are now in a different position in that the shareholders are not putting further funds in and we need to cut our cloth accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 They don't deserve any reprieve. They must have seen it coming when they signed 8 players in the summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted November 17, 2010 Author Share Posted November 17, 2010 They don't deserve any reprieve. They must have seen it coming when they signed 8 players in the summer. finally ! someone thinking the same as me ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 (edited) finally ! someone thinking the same as me ! I don't think they deserve letting off... I didn't think Portsmouth deserved it... Or Cardiff... Or any of the other clubs... And I certainly don't think we will deserve letting off either if we have unpaid tax... Edited November 17, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Keith Hill was on GMR before the game on saturday and he had it spot on, he said... How can a club in such a financial mess be allowed to sign Clinton Morrisson, Gary Teale, Chris Sedgwick, John Otsemobor, Neil Mellor, Giles Coke, Daniel Jones and Paul Heffernan in the summer?? Its just wrong, i can see where 0000's coming from cos we are in debt, but sheff wed's are just taking the pi$$. It's called sepculating to accumulate (I know you know this). Far too many on here are advocating it, in feffect, by over spending each season it is exactly what we have done, twice now. Sheff Weds have done it on a much bigger scale. It is only through the fact the TTA choose Directors loans rather than avoiding other bills that we are not in the same boat as Sheff Weds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 It is only through the fact the TTA choose Directors loans rather than avoiding other bills that we are not in the same boat as Sheff Weds. And people seem to not understand how quickly that will change. How much is the new debt? How much is tax? It only has to get to 25% and we'll be in danger of being liquidated. I can't think the winding up order is far from being in the post anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_R Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 The difference between us and Sheffield Wednesday is that whereas SW have spent money that they didn't have and then couldn't afford to pay when the bills became due, OAFC's owners set budgets, knew that income was below outgoings and voluntarily put funds in to the club in the form of a loan which they knew that they may or not get back so that when the bills become due the money to pay them was there. The risk is with OAFC's shareholders not the taxman. However we are now in a different position in that the shareholders are not putting further funds in and we need to cut our cloth accordingly. The thing is TTA (or Blitz and Gazal) agreed to sign players on two or three year deals last year but have stopped funding the club part way through those, meaning the the money is not there to pay them. So we now have a wage bill that we can’t afford as we’re struggling to ship those players out, resulting in Hardy’s ‘Financial Disaster’ claim last week. Yet despite this we’ve still added to our wage bill this season, and have taken on loans, short term contracts etc. These may not be big wages, but it would appear its still money we haven’t got. The grand scale of things is much smaller, but the principal is very similar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 The thing is TTA (or Blitz and Gazal) agreed to sign players on two or three year deals last year but have stopped funding the club part way through those, meaning the the money is not there to pay them. So we now have a wage bill that we can’t afford as we’re struggling to ship those players out, resulting in Hardy’s ‘Financial Disaster’ claim last week. Yet despite this we’ve still added to our wage bill this season, and have taken on loans, short term contracts etc. These may not be big wages, but it would appear its still money we haven’t got. The grand scale of things is much smaller, but the principal is very similar. Indeed...our heroes aren't quite the heroes they've painted of themselves to be...the one thing TTA have in return is cheap land bought off the council (who were safeguarding it for our future, which now looks eternally bleak) and they will eventually recoup most, if not all (along with players sales, tv monies etc.) of what they have "loaned." Regarding clubs making these moves...the worst one ever is (and I expect forever will be) Southampton! How they avoided being wound up and got away with spunking a million notes on Ricky Lambert, I'll never know. Used to have a soft spot for them but not any more...scummy bastards (with now, a scummy manager!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc-lover Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Indeed...our heroes aren't quite the heroes they've painted of themselves to be...the one thing TTA have in return is cheap land bought off the council (who were safeguarding it for our future, which now looks eternally bleak) and they will eventually recoup most, if not all (along with players sales, tv monies etc.) of what they have "loaned." Leaving us playing in Failsworth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Regarding clubs making these moves...the worst one ever is (and I expect forever will be) Southampton! How they avoided being wound up and got away with spunking a million notes on Ricky Lambert, I'll never know. Used to have a soft spot for them but not any more...scummy bastards (with now, a scummy manager!) Well, Markus Liebherr bought them, paid off the required amount c£15M and then spent about a 3,000th of his wealth on Lambert. If rich owners want to throw money at it (and not wanting to recoup the money in footballing loans), then you can't really argue. It just becomes a problem if the aforementioned owner bites the dust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Leaving us playing in Failsworth In our dreams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Take That Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 (edited) The thing is TTA (or Blitz and Gazal) agreed to sign players on two or three year deals last year but have stopped funding the club part way through those, meaning the the money is not there to pay them. So we now have a wage bill that we can’t afford as we’re struggling to ship those players out, resulting in Hardy’s ‘Financial Disaster’ claim last week. Yet despite this we’ve still added to our wage bill this season, and have taken on loans, short term contracts etc. These may not be big wages, but it would appear its still money we haven’t got. The grand scale of things is much smaller, but the principal is very similar. Have we???????????? Who has told you this? Edited November 17, 2010 by Take That Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_R Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Have we???????????? Who has told you this? Well I presume Feeney, Jones, Jarrett etc are being paid a wage, and all the loans, short term deals etc will cost the club something. These were all signed after Blitz said 'no more money' and we lost £1.5m last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Indeed...our heroes aren't quite the heroes they've painted of themselves to be...the one thing TTA have in return is cheap land bought off the council (who were safeguarding it for our future, which now looks eternally bleak) and they will eventually recoup most, if not all (along with players sales, tv monies etc.) of what they have "loaned." Regarding clubs making these moves...the worst one ever is (and I expect forever will be) Southampton! How they avoided being wound up and got away with spunking a million notes on Ricky Lambert, I'll never know. Used to have a soft spot for them but not any more...scummy bastards (with now, a scummy manager!) If the TTA go back with the money they invested (which I highly doubt, the fgures do not stack up) then good luck to them. They certainly did nnot come here claiming to be sugar daddies, it was supposed to be a win-win. Some for them and a brand new stadium for us. The fact it has not cannot be firmly and 100% nailed to the TTA door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 (edited) Well I presume Feeney, Jones, Jarrett etc are being paid a wage, and all the loans, short term deals etc will cost the club something. These were all signed after Blitz said 'no more money' and we lost £1.5m last year. And the 7 players loaned out? Gregan, we all "know", was on a significant wedge. Edited November 17, 2010 by singe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 (edited) If the TTA go back with the money they invested (which I highly doubt, the fgures do not stack up) then good luck to them. They certainly did nnot come here claiming to be sugar daddies, it was supposed to be a win-win. Some for them and a brand new stadium for us. The fact it has not cannot be firmly and 100% nailed to the TTA door. Fair comment, I wouldn't ever label them as the sole engineers of our ending and I've stated endlessly on here that they came with very good intentions. Those intentions co-incided with their 5yr plan which never got off page 1 due to their inability to stick to plans set out and since the 5yr plan evaporated, so did the jovial tones and "we're all together" atmosphere. Anyway, this doesn't need to be another thread over blame (not suggesting you or I are turning it into that...just nipping it in the bud before others do)...my comments are merely addressing the question over whether we've lived beyond our means. My belief is that the money that's been recouped through tv games, player sales, cup games and playoffs etc. the money they'll get once BP is carved up and sold off etc. they'll not be too far short of what they've spent. So in essence, we've not lived that far from our means....just we've had to sacrifice the golden egg the council were safeguarding for us, for our means. Edited November 17, 2010 by boundaryblue80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_R Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 And the 7 players loaned out? Gregan, we all "know", was on a significant wedge. But even if the wage bill for the players we’ve signed equates to that we’ve (mostly only recently) loaned out, or is even a bit less, we’re still losing a shed load of money with no one to bail us out if the :censored: hits the fan. So in effect we’ve still signed players whose wages we can’t afford. I’m not having a go at anyone here, it’s just that on a smaller scale we’ve only done what Wednesday have (ands most other clubs for that matter). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.