lordswoodsaints Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 (edited) Either we are in admin or not. If we are in admin then notts county are a creditor and should wait in line for the scraps thrown to them like all the other people we owe money to,taking our 10 point deduction. Or We are not in admin,we pay our debt to county and there is no deduction in points The league can't have it both ways. Edited 4 June, 2009 by lordswoodsaints Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 Either we are in admin or not. If we are in admin then forest are a creditor and should wait in line for the scraps thrown to them like all the other people we owe money to,taking our 10 point deduction. Or We are not in admin,we pay our debt to forest and there is no deduction in points The league can't have it both ways. think you will find that logic etc goes out of the window when dealing with football blaziers at all levels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouchi Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 Yes they can - it's their league, their rules and cross them if you dare! Even though we are in admin, they are perfectly entitled to intercept transfer payments to pay other debts to league clubs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 Either we are in admin or not. If we are in admin then forest are a creditor and should wait in line for the scraps thrown to them like all the other people we owe money to,taking our 10 point deduction. Or We are not in admin,we pay our debt to forest and there is no deduction in points The league can't have it both ways. think you mean County not Forest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waggy Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 Either we are in admin or not. If we are in admin then forest are a creditor and should wait in line for the scraps thrown to them like all the other people we owe money to,taking our 10 point deduction. Or We are not in admin,we pay our debt to forest and there is no deduction in points The league can't have it both ways. wtf do we owe Forest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 4 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 4 June, 2009 Sorry I meant county....I'm an idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 Thought the FA were preferential in any event ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 Its actually a good rule the the FL/FA get funds from transfers, otherwise 1 club going into trouble could have a knock down effect if it owes 2 or 3 clubs, these could go under and if they owe clubs money.... Im sure if it was the other way round, the OP would want Saints to be paid to keep them out of admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La BoIS Saint Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 Aren't football creditors meant to get 100%? In which case it's quite right that County get paid before admistrator gets the cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 4 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 4 June, 2009 It is a good rule and I would be p1ssed off if it happened to us but who's to say that another football club is a more important creditor than somebody else or even the tax man? If you are in administration like the league have stated then all of our assets should be given over to the administrator to dish out fairly. They can't say you are in admin but we will decide who gets paid first and when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 It is a good rule and I would be p1ssed off if it happened to us but who's to say that another football club is a more important creditor than somebody else or even the tax man? If you are in administration like the league have stated then all of our assets should be given over to the administrator to dish out fairly. They can't say you are in admin but we will decide who gets paid first and when. But the FL rules require that football related debt is paid first. I guess that means transfer fees as well as player wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 It is a good rule and I would be p1ssed off if it happened to us but who's to say that another football club is a more important creditor than somebody else or even the tax man? If you are in administration like the league have stated then all of our assets should be given over to the administrator to dish out fairly. They can't say you are in admin but we will decide who gets paid first and when. I would imagine this has all been sorted already, hence why we are coming out of administration? Would you prefer we don't have an agreed CVA and a further 17 point deduction instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 They can't say you are in admin but we will decide who gets paid first and when. They do indeed actually dictate who gets paid first as the League have deemed that every footballing creditor (other clubs, players etc) must be given prefernetial creditor status and paid out first (and normally in full). If this isn't done then the League don't give the club their "golden share" and therefore the club can't play in the League. This is what the taxman has started to get p1ssy about, as their preferential creditor status was removed a few uyears back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 The club is not in administration. Maybe Clapham Saint would like to clarify the law in relation to administration with money being paid to a third party to circumvent the law. I suspect the league would not be able to have done it if the club was in administration. I can still see the points deduction ditched. SLH is being delisted and dissolved. The assets are being transferred into a holding company, the creditors are being paid, the mortgage paid off, the club debt free, the league can hardly sustain the illegal interpretation of their rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 I would imagine this has all been sorted already, hence why we are coming out of administration? Would you prefer we don't have an agreed CVA and a further 17 point deduction instead? If a CVA is required, then 75% of the creditors (in monetary terms) need to agree it. As it seems the creditors are happy with the terms from pinnacle to have exclusivity I would imagine a CVA will be approved. However, that will not stop the FL being imposing another penalty (likely to be 15 points) if they feel (or other clubs) that we've got an advantage. Obviously Leyton Orient would vote for further punishment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 If a CVA is required, then 75% of the creditors (in monetary terms) need to agree it. As it seems the creditors are happy with the terms from pinnacle to have exclusivity I would imagine a CVA will be approved. However, that will not stop the FL being imposing another penalty (likely to be 15 points) if they feel (or other clubs) that we've got an advantage. Obviously Leyton Orient would vote for further punishment! We don't need a CVA. The debts of a company (SFC) NOT in administration are being settled. The public company will no longer exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 the league can hardly sustain the illegal interpretation of their rules. It is not an illegal interpretation of their rules. However, that will not stop the FL being imposing another penalty (likely to be 15 points) if they feel (or other clubs) that we've got an advantage. Obviously Leyton Orient would vote for further punishment! The FL won't just add on -15 for any old reason. In the case of Luton it was for financial irregularities, whilst for other clubs it was for not complying with the League's insolvency policy (e.g. failing to agree a CVA). I doubt they'll find any financial irregularitis as their forensic accountants have been in and no one has heard a whisper about anything untoward, so that only leaves failing to agree a CVA which will hopefully be OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 We don't need a CVA. The debts of a company (SFC) NOT in administration are being settled. The public company will no longer exist. In the eyes of the League, SFC Ltd and SFC PLC are one and the same. You may not agree with it, but that is what they have decided and when they announced that they also said the other provisions of the League's insolvency policy would apply to SFC Ltd and SFC PLC (i.e. a CVA for the PLC would have to be agreed and SFC Ltd would be bound in to that outcome). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 (edited) In the eyes of the League, SFC Ltd and SFC PLC are one and the same. You may not agree with it, but that is what they have decided and when they announced that they also said the other provisions of the League's insolvency policy would apply to SFC Ltd and SFC PLC (i.e. a CVA for the PLC would have to be agreed and SFC Ltd would be bound in to that outcome). I can't see there being a CVA for the PLC as it probably isn't going to exit admin, it's going to be wound up. I reckon a CVA could be arranged for SFC Ltd if needs be by simply orchestrating a pre-pack admin, prior to completion (assuming it is insolvent). To be honest, if the creditors are happy with the deal and all football debts are paid I shouldn't think the FA would take any more action - they would only be increasing the likelihood of ending up in court and being made to look like a bumbling bunch of nitwits. Edited 4 June, 2009 by benjii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 I can't see there being a CVA for the PLC as it probably isn't going to exit admin, it's going to be wound up. I reckon a CVA could be arranged for SFC Ltd if needs be by simply orchestrating a pre-pack admin, prior to completion (assuming it is insolvent). To be honest, if the creditors are happy with the deal and all football debts are paid I shouldn't think the FA would take any more action - they would only be increasing the likelihood of ending up in court and being made to look like a bumbling bunch of nitwits. Well hopefully we will come out of it with most of the creditor's agreement (certainly Barclays & Aviva seem to be making the right noises), but you can count on HMRC objecting to it out of principle. But we won't get lumped with another points deduction just because the League feel like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exit2 Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 The club is not in administration. Maybe Clapham Saint would like to clarify the law in relation to administration with money being paid to a third party to circumvent the law Derry I wish you would get over this thing about the club not being in administration. With SFC not paying its wages on Thursday basically showed SFC was insolvent with or without SLH. But your concern about money being paid to a third party ie The Football League, I believe is the normal practice. ie Bale goes to Spurs, Spurs pay the fa / fl who then pay us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 But we won't get lumped with another points deduction just because the League feel like it. I wish I was as confident as you re that point I don't trust them one bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junction 9 Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 Aren't they about to be bought anyway? Can't see what the urgency is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 Well hopefully we will come out of it with most of the creditor's agreement (certainly Barclays & Aviva seem to be making the right noises), but you can count on HMRC objecting to it out of principle. But we won't get lumped with another points deduction just because the League feel like it. Steve, surely they can only object if they're a creditor. I thought it had been said many times on here (and therefore must be true) that we don't owe HMRC anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 The FL won't just add on -15 for any old reason. In the case of Luton it was for financial irregularities, whilst for other clubs it was for not complying with the League's insolvency policy (e.g. failing to agree a CVA). I doubt they'll find any financial irregularitis as their forensic accountants have been in and no one has heard a whisper about anything untoward, so that only leaves failing to agree a CVA which will hopefully be OK. Haha, I wish I had your faith in the FL! I did say if one (a CVA) is required. If you read the FL statement they say the other provisions of The League's insolvency policy also become effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 Steve, surely they can only object if they're a creditor. I thought it had been said many times on here (and therefore must be true) that we don't owe HMRC anything. Companies always owe something to HMRC (NIC, PAYE, VAT etc), it's whether we can afford to pay it on time, and if not, whether the sum is sufficient for it to help derail a CVA that will be our problem, but hopefully with the big creditors seeming happy, it will be OK. I personally wouldn't believe anyone on here who says we are up to date with regards HMRC until someone from the Club tells us officially!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 Companies always owe something to HMRC (NIC, PAYE, VAT etc), it's whether we can afford to pay it on time, and if not, whether the sum is sufficient for it to help derail a CVA that will be our problem, but hopefully with the big creditors seeming happy, it will be OK. I persoally wouldn't believe anyone on here who says we are up to date with regards HMRC until someone from the Club tells us officially!!!! Hi Um I think Weston Saint was quite adament, that we are good as far as HMRC are concerned. Although agree we need to hear it fro the horses mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 Hi Um I think Weston Saint was quite adament, that we are good as far as HMRC are concerned. Although agree we need to hear it fro the horses mouth. If we couldn't afford to pay out our net wages to players and staff then I very much doubt we would be able to pay the 10% NIC's and the 25%-40% PAYE deductions!!!!! Of course, now the wages have been paid, we're hoping we also have the money to settle with HMRC, but IMHO the payments to HMRC would be just as much of a problem to pay as our other costs have been in recent months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 Companies always owe something to HMRC (NIC, PAYE, VAT etc), it's whether we can afford to pay it on time, and if not, whether the sum is sufficient for it to help derail a CVA that will be our problem, but hopefully with the big creditors seeming happy, it will be OK. I personally wouldn't believe anyone on here who says we are up to date with regards HMRC until someone from the Club tells us officially!!!! HMRC are not a big creditor compared to Aviva and Barclays so a CVA (if required) will be approved without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicestersaint Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 Football is generally run by dim-wits and clowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 (edited) The wages were paid, as long as the club becomes debt free without going into administration irrespective of the interpretation put on it by the league there is only the connection to a company that no longer exists. The league's rules apply to clubs in administraton. Pinnacle have taken legal advice, as have the administrators and the club, they are all still sticking to the probability of an appeal. It will be QC's that will consider the validity of the league's ruling. The VOLUNTARY liquidation of the public company, and the settlement of all it's debts without the club going into administration by a £14m injection of cash will give the league a problem. Edited 5 June, 2009 by derry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 Derry I wish you would get over this thing about the club not being in administration. With SFC not paying its wages on Thursday basically showed SFC was insolvent with or without SLH. But your concern about money being paid to a third party ie The Football League, I believe is the normal practice. ie Bale goes to Spurs, Spurs pay the fa / fl who then pay us. Owing money, not being able to settle debts, being allowed to continue to trade by the creditors buying time to sell the club and then being paid is not administration. If the club had been in administration I suspect in law the administrator would have to receive any payments. The administration law would not allow third parties to deduct debts from money paid for the sale of a company asset. In effect the transfer could not have happened if we had been in administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 My understanding is that the club has at no point been in administration and has not missed wage payments (delayed maybe, which is unprofessional and unacceptable but not insolvency), I don't believe we have missed paying other clubs, we may have delayed payment, but that is something that all businesses practice. The club may have sailed close to the wind but if it is sold soon I can't see that in black and white legal terms the league has any sort of case to support their personal view that the club was in administration, and to enforce a penalty. Not guilty, appeal upheld, Championship here we come - next case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 4 June, 2009 Share Posted 4 June, 2009 SFC couldn't pay it's staff for 24 hours last week... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 5 June, 2009 Share Posted 5 June, 2009 The league's rules apply to club's in administraton. Pinnacle have taken legal advice, as have the administrators and the club, they are all still sticking to the probability of an appeal. And when the League interpreted their rules they deemed the football club to also effectively be in administration and therefore we will start with -10. The previous regime also took legal advice. HMRC are not a big creditor compared to Aviva and Barclays so a CVA (if required) will be approved without them. That is my hope, in that whilst HMRC will probably vote against any CVA relating to a football club (as they don't agrre with football debts being preferential as a principle), hopefully their debt and that of any other dissenters will be If the club had been in administration I suspect in law the administrator would have to receive any payments. The administration law would not allow third parties to deduct debts from money paid for the sale of a company asset. In effect the transfer could not have happened if we had been in administration. Many football clubes still sell players when they are in administration http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/luton_town/7181317.stm and the mechanics of the payments still operate in exactly the same way (i.e. via the authorities). Quite simply if you do not abide by FA/FL rules relating to financial issues (including transfer payments), then you do not get to play in the League, which when you're trying to sell a club as a going concern is a rather major factor. Expulsion from the League would somewhat impinge on a Administrator's ability to sell a club as a going concern. The club may have sailed close to the wind but if it is sold soon I can't see that in black and white legal terms the league has any sort of case to support their personal view that the club was in administration, and to enforce a penalty. Not guilty, appeal upheld, Championship here we come - next case! Whilst I admire your optimism, I have to say I feel it is misplaced. We are not dealing with a black and white legal issue here, we are dealing with the rules, and interpretation of them, within a "members club". IMHO, in this case substance over form will be the order of the day and as with Leeds, the League can easily use their exceptional circumstances clause as a catch all to cover our PLC/Ltd smoke and mirrors attempt. They already have done so and I don't think any appeal will be successful (that's even if it is entertained). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamsaint Posted 5 June, 2009 Share Posted 5 June, 2009 If HMRC are paid in full, can they legally vote against a CVA? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madsent Posted 5 June, 2009 Share Posted 5 June, 2009 If HMRC are paid in full, can they legally vote against a CVA? . In general, if no monies are owing to a party, they aren't a creditor and thus have no input into whether a CVA would be awarded. However, HMRC are slightly different as it's almost impossible for a company not to be in debt to them. By the time your payment has cleared, you owe them more money for PAYE, National Insurance and VAT. That said, I'm sure they'd offer no objection if our payments were considered up-to-date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 5 June, 2009 Share Posted 5 June, 2009 (edited) As I said, if an administrator tries to raise funds by selling players the league rules apply but if the administrator insisted all the money was transferred to them then the transfer wouldn't take place. The club is not in administration and is the only member of the league. SLH is being dissolved and will not exist by the time an appeal goes in. The club will be debt free after an injection of £14m and will have a good case. Time will tell, league committees are one thing, legality, the law and QCs are quite another. Edited 5 June, 2009 by derry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 5 June, 2009 Share Posted 5 June, 2009 Hi Um I think Weston Saint was quite adament, that we are good as far as HMRC are concerned. Although agree we need to hear it fro the horses mouth.I was told a while back they were up to date but I have since been told we do owe them some money. Not massive but not insignificant either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 5 June, 2009 Share Posted 5 June, 2009 I was told a while back they were up to date but I have since been told we do owe them some money. Not massive but not insignificant either. I read somewhere it was 2m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 5 June, 2009 Share Posted 5 June, 2009 I read somewhere it was 2m. It was reported in the Times business section last week when it was confirmed Pinnacle had been granted exclusivity that the club owed HMRC £2m. Don't know if you read the same article but certainly would confirm what you read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Ash Posted 5 June, 2009 Share Posted 5 June, 2009 I'm quite happy to take the 10 point hit on the chin and move on, we'll have a club at least and if we start bickering over the 10 points trying to get it removed I wouldn't be surprised if the league decided to slap on another 10 or 15 points for the sake of it to act all hard! Not worth the risk in my opinion, let's take the 10 points and get on with the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkSFC Posted 5 June, 2009 Share Posted 5 June, 2009 I'm quite happy to take the 10 point hit on the chin and move on, we'll have a club at least and if we start bickering over the 10 points trying to get it removed I wouldn't be surprised if the league decided to slap on another 10 or 15 points for the sake of it to act all hard! Not worth the risk in my opinion, let's take the 10 points and get on with the season. It pains me to say mate, I agree with you!!! See you tomorrow...whats the plan if its raining???!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now