Clapham Saint

My understanding is that the court date has been set for the 1st as this is the first available court date. On that basis, I don't think anything will happen until the hearing.

Don't worry Nick. Still here. However having been WRONG about the fire sale of players and WRONG about the, being wound up before the match at the weekend I've not bothered to post much in the last couple of days. Given that I still expect them to get wound up I don't want to end up being wrong about that too!

7.39 still no web link? FFS! This site has really gone down hill.

Yes. That argument only holds up if they are operating at a profit... Then again, ignoring any payments which need to be made seems to be becoming the standard down there.

I'm sure that most would know this already but just in case... Net Assets/(Liabilities) doesn't refer to their debts. It is the amount that their liabilities are HIGHER than the value of their assets.

They aren't paying any tax at the moment regardless. If the players go to other clubs then the other clubs will (hopefully) pay the tax due.

Frantic? As in... Storrie: Please. HMRC: No. Storrie: Please. HMRC: No. Storrie: Please. HMRC: No. Storrie: Please. HMRC: No. etc...

Quite right. They might get nothing from the skates but if 5 other clubs suddenly feel the need to stop p*ssing around and cough up then HMRC are still on the up.

Not long to find out if I can either say I told you so or have to admit getting it wrong... It is highly unlikely any lawyer/accountant/an other is going to announce that he/she thinks they are insolvent and royally F**ked on national radio or tv though. If they did the skates legal team (and there must be a few of them) would be all over them like a rash. Tick tock.

Nope. They will be in the same pot as the milkman.

The back dating of a salary reduction with no notice is bang out of order IMO. I understand that these things have to happen sometimes but I would have expected some notice if not consultation and would have thought there would be a case on that alone...

You can obviously never say never. However in cases where I have seen HMRC get this far they don't tend to back down. We'll see but I'm firmly in the "posters who are right" camp.

Posters seem to fall into two camps. Those who think that HMRC would be silly to get nothing and so it is only sensible to let them have one last chance and seek wind them up as soon as they default on a repayment plan. For the sake of argument lets call these posters the "posters who are wrong". The "posters who are right", although understanding the logic of this relaise that this is exactly what they did LAST TIME. Without being able to demonstrate that they can pay back what is owed in full they are insolvent and should be wound up. Obviously ;) before anybody gets upset.

Agreed.

This will be the important thing with HMRC. If they had wanted to they could have raised the funds to pay. They chose not to and are now asking for more time. HMRC is not a bank. They do not lend money to funding operating losses and will want paying.

Exactly. If they had really really wanted too they could have raised the money in the transfer window. They chose not too and should face the consequenses. Their argument will noo doubt be that "they" have now changed after Chanarai has "taken over" and so its not the current lots fault. Please don't punish us for the last owners actios etc. Convenient timing of the "take over" isn't it. Goes against all normal logic. Hmmm..........

And increases the amount that he needs to pursuade some mug to part with if he wants to get his money back. Throwing good money after bad is not the way to become a wealthy man.

The only hope they have of a stay of execution is if there is a real prospect of them finding a buyer in the next 28 days. Strange that all of this interest from people with money to sh*t away shold emerge now. No prizes for guessing the source of the Storries.

Gven the sources of income available to them what payment plan are they going to be able to stick to? Bearing in mind that they need £3m each month to pay the players and income almost certainly won't even cover that what on earth are they going to propose? Without Chanarai coughing up, the only thing they can offer is to pay nothing and maybe pay in the future. Not a hope of being accepted.

IMO it is just to give the impression that something is hapening in the hope that HMRC buy it and give them some extra time.

The main problem for an administrator is that if he keeps the players on he has to pay them for the period of his appointment. If he doesn't then manage to sell the club (which is a definite possibility) he would have incurred running costs which there are no funds to pay. If this happens he could be personally liable to creditors for the short fall. Would you take the risk? The other option is for the administrator to shut the doors or he could make some of the more expensive players redundant straight away to get the running costs down. They would have a claim for breach of contract but it would be to make an unsecured claim (although it would be a football related debtor). Or of course to just refuse the appointment in the first place.

Yes, but unless he is going to find a buyer sharpish he is also going to have to cough up for/renegotiate other payments too. The players and staff need to be paid. If it takes to the end of the season to sell them thats another £15m or so on its own (5 months at £3m ish).

Wouldlove to see how the negotiations are going... Story Teller: We would like to negotiate. HMRC: Not a hope. Cough up. Story Teller: Please... HMRC: Whatever, call back when you can pay. ***click***

Probably not. Better to lose £17m (or whatever it is) now than put another £17m in and end up losing that as well.

Clearly a bit far fetched. :smt119 Of course in this fictional scenario Chanrai would also get a huge kick back from the government of wherever his company is registered. Assuming his company is profitable and pays tax on that profit, having to write off £17m would significantly reduce the tax it has to pay! (I have no idea if the income from the lawsuit would be fully taxable wherever the company is located but I'd be amazed if there wasn't a sneaky way around it)