Pompey Takeover Saga

[Sour Mash]

It isn't a case of can't answer. It is just that I choose not to answer. Do you see the difference?

 

Why don't you ask HMRC why they bothered to take the FL to court to challenge the FCR? I'm sure that they will provide you with good reason for making the challenge.

Well the judge didn't agree with them (yet again), so why don't you ask him if you're so confused?

[Matthew Le God]

Insist that all debt is paid back 100% to football creditors and non football creditors. Rather than a CVA being 20% over 5 years like at Pompey, make it 100% over 20 years.

 

The managing director at Accrington Stanley likes my solution...

 

Robert Heys ‏@robheys

@MatthewLeGod I really like that

 

https://twitter.com/#!/robheys

 

1 down, 71 Football League clubs to go.

 

Everyone retweet this and lets see if we can get more of the 72 clubs interested...

 

[hutch]

Rather than a CVA being 20% over 5 years like at Pompey...

It's wasn't, though. It was 20% after 5 years. It's underhand tricks like that that should be outlawed.

 

Whispers now are a new CVA at 2%. That's about £1m. If the creditors accept it, give them back their golden share when they've paid it.

[Wes Tender]

Well the judge didn't agree with them (yet again), so why don't you ask him if you're so confused?

 

It isn't me who is confused. You must be confused if you think that.

 

I already said that if the law allows the judiciary to adjudicate in favour of the FCR, then the law needs to be amended by act of Parliament. You obviously think it right that fabulously wealthy footballers will be paid before the taxman, charities and local businesses. Bully for you.

[Sour Mash]

It isn't me who is confused. You must be confused if you think that.

 

I already said that if the law allows the judiciary to adjudicate in favour of the FCR, then the law needs to be amended by act of Parliament. You obviously think it right that fabulously wealthy footballers will be paid before the taxman, charities and local businesses. Bully for you.

It's not about what I think is "right". The law that allows companies to write off costs full stop then go out and do it all over again is the real problem in my eyes, not an industry trying to protect it's other companies and employees.

[Torres]

How? Not saying you're wrong, just don't follow the logic on that one.

 

You're in the market for a new job and are headhunted by a couple of your current employer's competitors. Company A is a good, solid company with a strong reputation for financial management and offers you £50k/year. Company B is a little fly-by-night, has been in financial trouble in the past and had to sack several employees without any severance package not that long ago but they offer you £60k/year.

 

Would you take the risk of the higher salary knowing that you could be in the dole queue in 18 months time?

 

Now imagine that, despite Company B being financially dubious, you're guaranteed to get paid, whatever bother they may get themselves into? Now to you take the risk? What risk? There is no risk.

 

Now, if Company A wants you, they have to match what Company B are offering.

 

Next time around, Company B offer someone else £65k/year to outbid Company A. Company A have to match it.

 

Repeat ad nauseum and you find John Utaka is being paid £80,000 each and every week.

[Wes Tender]

It's not about what I think is "right". The law that allows companies to write off costs full stop then go out and do it all over again is the real problem in my eyes, not an industry trying to protect it's other companies and employees.

 

Well, we agree about the first part and certainly there ought to be legislation to prevent a company forming a holding company, transferring the assets into that shell-company and then going under, wiping off the debts, only to emerge as Fred Bloggs (2012) Ltd, with the same directors. Regarding the wish of the FL/PL trying to protect its other companies and employees, it isn't that the clubs are owned by them, merely part of their cosy little club. If they go bust, then why should their treatment be any different to any other business? The players are like employees anywhere and should have similar employment rights to everybody else. When their rights transcend those of the Taxman, charities and local businesses who are down the list of creditors as a result, then it is morally reprehensible. Or don't you see it like that?

[Sour Mash]

You're in the market for a new job and are headhunted by a couple of your current employer's competitors. Company A is a good, solid company with a strong reputation for financial management and offers you £50k/year. Company B is a little fly-by-night, has been in financial trouble in the past and had to sack several employees without any severance package not that long ago but they offer you £60k/year.

 

Would you take the risk of the higher salary knowing that you could be in the dole queue in 18 months time?

 

Now imagine that, despite Company B being financially dubious, you're guaranteed to get paid, whatever bother they may get themselves into? Now to you take the risk? What risk? There is no risk.

 

Now, if Company A wants you, they have to match what Company B are offering.

 

Next time around, Company B offer someone else £65k/year to outbid Company A. Company A have to match it.

 

Repeat ad nauseum and you find John Utaka is being paid £80,000 each and every week.

OK, I get the logic, but for how many footballers/clubs is that really a genuine concern/worry? How many footballers over the last 10 years say have signed a contract with any real thought about whether they'll be paid? Might have made a difference with the Skates in the last few years, but for 90% I doubt it crosses their mind.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The reason for the FCR is to stop the domino effect of one club going pop and bringing down others with it. An example would go along these lines. Skates owe Boscombe for Pearce, they dont pay the amount owing. Boscombe go into admin, but they owe Crawley for Tubbs, Crawley owe Sailsbury for Tubbs and on and on. There is such a fine line between clubs being solvent and not, that they have to ensure that they receive the full amount.

 

My solution would be for CLUBS to be part of the FCR, but not indivdual players. This would at a stroke mean that better run clubs would sign the better players and basket caeses would be punished for not running the club in the correct manner (punishment being that nobody in their right mind will sign for them).There was an agent on Talksport 6 months ago saying that if the FCR was abolished, then no agent would send a player to Pompey. Norris' agent must have known what was going on, but didn't give a **** as whatever happened, both him and Norris would get paid. Bring in my version of the rule, and Norris would take a smaller salary at a better run club.

[Sour Mash]

Well, we agree about the first part and certainly there ought to be legislation to prevent a company forming a holding company, transferring the assets into that shell-company and then going under, wiping off the debts, only to emerge as Fred Bloggs (2012) Ltd, with the same directors. Regarding the wish of the FL/PL trying to protect its other companies and employees, it isn't that the clubs are owned by them, merely part of their cosy little club. If they go bust, then why should their treatment be any different to any other business? The players are like employees anywhere and should have similar employment rights to everybody else. When their rights transcend those of the Taxman, charities and local businesses who are down the list of creditors as a result, then it is morally reprehensible. Or don't you see it like that?

Because, rightly or wrongly, the football authorities first and foremost responsibility is to protect their industry and it's various members, the football authorities don't exist to protect charities, the taxman, local business unfortunately and it's a bit unrealistic to expect them to not have their own members as their primary concern as any industry body would, they wouldn't be doing their job otherwise. Morally? Morally every penny should be paid back to those owed it, but the laws of this land don't agree with that - is that football's fault?

 

If football lost 20 football league clubs as a result of enforcing every penny of debt was paid back, is that a good thing? If I'm honest, I'm not sure.

[Matthew Le God]

OK, I get the logic, but for how many footballers/clubs is that really a genuine concern/worry? How many footballers over the last 10 years say have signed a contract with any real thought about whether they'll be paid?

 

In the last 10 years, 36 English clubs have gone into administration, many others have had to delay wages, numerous others are perilously close to administration and English clubs as a collective have huge debts.

[derry]

Under tax laws can HMRC refuse credit to employers and force them to pay the HMRC the deducted tax etc due each month before the salaries are actually paid out?

[holepuncture]

It isn't me who is confused. You must be confused if you think that.

 

I already said that if the law allows the judiciary to adjudicate in favour of the FCR, then the law needs to be amended by act of Parliament. You obviously think it right that fabulously wealthy footballers will be paid before the taxman, charities and local businesses. Bully for you.

 

It's not about what I think is "right". The law that allows companies to write off costs full stop then go out and do it all over again is the real problem in my eyes, not an industry trying to protect it's other companies and employees.

 

Absolutely, the law is letting this happen and once again a toothless judge has bottled it... no doubt under significant lobbying and pressure by football institutions protecting their gravy trains...

 

pompey really have brought this issue to the forefront though with their scandalous behaviour. A club going into administration, despite its best efforts to cut costs, manage its debts and so on, isnt the worst thing in the world. Yes businesses can catch a cold and some jobs may be lost in the process, but essentially it gives a business another crack and all those that stuck by it get a chance to continue trading with the newCo and make some money in the future. Footballers get paid 100% to maintain the FLs system, so that the club can continue trading within the golden share club and make money...

 

Its when clubs like pompey absue the law and go completely against the spirit of not only the game but also against business principles and ethics... not a shred of fibre in them.

 

Pompey did it all on purpose, knowing the FCR lets them get around the rule book and shaft all those owed money... not only that, but without even the most basic of morals they plotted and schemed to do it TWICE...

 

That was no accident and the law had no power to stop them, nor have they the power to stop the doing it again next year.

 

honesty, integrity, moral and ethical standards... all thown out the window in pompey...

 

 

 

They had a choice and this is the road down... TWICE!

 

 

Wouldnt surprise me to see Chainrai do it all again in 12-18 months time, he knows he can get away with it over and over again and a spineless judge has confirmed that to him today... Sure, it hits his parachute payments now, but he will abuse this loophole over and over again, only the taxpayer and local businesses (+charities) will be losing out again.

 

 

pompey really are a disease, a foul stench on the game trying to seduce the rest into a filthy cheating ring of deceit.

 

DFCSBs

[derry]

The expensive players under contract are obviously going nowhere unless they are paid up. The PPs due this year are probably already accounted for. There may be no return for Chanrai if the players stay or have to have their contracts paid up out of the outstanding PPs. It looks like the press of the panic button isn't that far away.

[trousers]

http://supporters-direct.coop/news/item/?n=15327&cat=sd_eng

 

Friday, May 25, 2012

 

Supporters Direct today confirmed the appointment of David Lampitt as its new Chief Executive effective from 25 June.

 

David, who qualified as a chartered accountant with Ernst and Young, worked for 7 years in the Governance Division at The Football Association where he was Head of Financial Regulation and Head of Football Integrity until 2010. He has served as English football’s representative on the UEFA Club Licensing Committee and was one of the key contributors to UEFA’s Financial Fair Play project.

 

From May 2010 to February 2012 David was Chief Executive of Portsmouth FC. Prior to the club’s recent administration due to the collapse of its owner’s business, David successfully led the club out of administration in 2010 and safeguarded its survival through a major restructuring programme.

 

Speaking on behalf of Supporters Direct, the Chair, Dame Pauline Green, said: “I am absolutely delighted that we have managed to attract someone of David’s calibre and knowledge of the issues about which Supporters Direct cares so passionately. He is highly respected both domestically and in Europe for his work within football over the last 10 years. This and his first-hand experience at Portsmouth of the challenges facing so many of our clubs gives him unique insight into our work in the UK and Europe to promote sustainable spectator sports clubs based on supporters’ involvement and community ownership.”

 

Lampitt said: “It is a real privilege to be given this opportunity to help represent the interests of sport’s most important stakeholders. I look forward to working with some outstanding staff who should be rightly proud of Supporters Direct’s achievements, attracting over £30m of new finance into football and rugby league clubs since 2000. These sports continue to face significant economic challenges and I am very pleased to play a part in promoting the value that supporters and community involvement can bring to that process.”

 

Supporters Direct’s annual conference, being held in London in conjunction with the Football Supporters Federation as The Fans Weekend on the 7th and 8th of July, will provide an ideal opportunity for supporters to meet the new chief executive and hear what he has to say.

 

Edited 25 May, 2012 by trousers

[stevegrant]

Absolutely incredible appointment and statement.

 

David successfully led the club out of administration in 2010 and safeguarded its survival through a major restructuring programme.

Yes, and we're witnessing the fruits of that well-thought-out restructuring programme right now

[View From The Top]

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/pompey-weighing-up-training-ground-options-1-3880712

 

They haven't been kicked out............... Yet :)

 

They are now on a month by month contract, paid in advance.

[Sour Mash]

Absolutely incredible appointment and statement.

 

 

Yes, and we're witnessing the fruits of that well-thought-out restructuring programme right now

Got to be some sort of wind up surely?

[Minsk]

OK, I get the logic, but for how many footballers/clubs is that really a genuine concern/worry? How many footballers over the last 10 years say have signed a contract with any real thought about whether they'll be paid? Might have made a difference with the Skates in the last few years, but for 90% I doubt it crosses their mind.

 

You're right, it isn't a concern for any of them, not being paid wouldn't cross any of their minds because they are 100% guaranteed to be paid every penny of their contract.

[Minsk]

The reason for the FCR is to stop the domino effect of one club going pop and bringing down others with it. An example would go along these lines. Skates owe Boscombe for Pearce, they dont pay the amount owing. Boscombe go into admin, but they owe Crawley for Tubbs, Crawley owe Sailsbury for Tubbs and on and on. There is such a fine line between clubs being solvent and not, that they have to ensure that they receive the full amount.

 

My solution would be for CLUBS to be part of the FCR, but not indivdual players. This would at a stroke mean that better run clubs would sign the better players and basket caeses would be punished for not running the club in the correct manner (punishment being that nobody in their right mind will sign for them).There was an agent on Talksport 6 months ago saying that if the FCR was abolished, then no agent would send a player to Pompey. Norris' agent must have known what was going on, but didn't give a **** as whatever happened, both him and Norris would get paid. Bring in my version of the rule, and Norris would take a smaller salary at a better run club.

 

 

I like this idea!!

[Weston Super Saint]

Absolutely incredible appointment and statement.

 

 

Yes, and we're witnessing the fruits of that well-thought-out restructuring programme right now

 

How can you say that the inspired 'quality over quantity' restructuring programme was anything but a stroke of genius?

[derry]

Is Supporters Direct a government funded (quango) organisation? If so it figures.

[Kingsbridge Saint]

The directors of any businesses dealing with football clubs on anything but a cash on delivery basis need their heads examined. Footballs credit rating must be lower than a snakes belly in a cart wheel rut.

[Sour Mash]

You're right, it isn't a concern for any of them, not being paid wouldn't cross any of their minds because they are 100% guaranteed to be paid every penny of their contract.

How many signings do you think hinge on the fact that the player knows he'll get paid because of the FCR? Transfers that wouldn't go through otherwise? I'd guess at 5% of all transfers as an absolute maximum. Edited 25 May, 2012 by Sour Mash

[Wes Tender]

Because, rightly or wrongly, the football authorities first and foremost responsibility is to protect their industry and it's various members, the football authorities don't exist to protect charities, the taxman, local business unfortunately and it's a bit unrealistic to expect them to not have their own members as their primary concern as any industry body would, they wouldn't be doing their job otherwise. Morally? Morally every penny should be paid back to those owed it, but the laws of this land don't agree with that - is that football's fault?

 

If football lost 20 football league clubs as a result of enforcing every penny of debt was paid back, is that a good thing? If I'm honest, I'm not sure.

 

Morally all creditors should be paid at the same rate. And although the football authorities exist to protect the interests of their members, the judiciary should not give their members and employees an advantage over creditors outside of their cosy little club.

 

I'm not advocating that every penny of debt being paid back to creditors, let alone the footballing ones. It would be acceptable that in the event of a club going into administration, the creditors were treated in exactly the same way as those of any business in administration, each creditor being able to vote on the administrator's proposal for a percentage return from the CVA. It should then be up to the football authorities to ensure that swingeing penalties were applied as a deterrent against clubs who went into administration, even more stringent for successive failures. Current penalties are not harsh enough.

 

As to whether clubs going out of existence was a good thing, at the very least I would say that Pompey being liquidated would be a very good thing, as it would send out a very clear message to the other clubs as to what the likely result would be if anybody chose to model themselves on the way that they went about their business. But here again, the FL should have been totally toothless against them, sending out entirely the wrong message to others.

[Weston Super Saint]

How many signings do you think hinge on the fact that the player knows he'll get paid because of the FCR? Transfers that wouldn't go through otherwise? I'd guess at 55 of all transfers as an absolute maximum.

 

I'm guessing most of 'Arry's signings - that's gotta be over 55

 

Also, every signing at Pompey, and probably Plymouth for the last few years too.

[Katalinic]

Absolutely incredible appointment and statement.

 

 

Yes, and we're witnessing the fruits of that well-thought-out restructuring programme right now

 

There is PR and there is outright bull****. This statement is bull****.

[JackanorySFC]

You're right, it isn't a concern for any of them, not being paid wouldn't cross any of their minds because they are 100% guaranteed to be paid every penny of their contract.

 

True but they like getting 100% of their wages each and every month, not waiting around for it.

 

Players around L1, Champ etc know about their "issues" and won't go there unless they are thick or have nowhere else. I mentioned the Championship player out of contract that just turned them down despite being offered decent money, happy to name him (a few here guessed, none correctly I'm afraid) after he signs for the club he wants which has almost completed. He isn't from Southampton, just met him and a few of his team mates on a mutual stag do last week - mate of a mate.

[Minsk]

How many signings do you think hinge on the fact that the player knows he'll get paid because of the FCR? Transfers that wouldn't go through otherwise? I'd guess at 55 of all transfers as an absolute maximum.

 

I doubt many hinge on the FCR, as I doubt the players ever really think much about it. However, if it didn't exist I would imagine most players would take into consideration the financial state of their prospective future employer and whether or not there was a chance of them going under and thus said player being severely out of pocket.

[Sour Mash]

I'm guessing most of 'Arry's signings - that's gotta be over 55

 

Also, every signing at Pompey, and probably Plymouth for the last few years too.

Was meant to say 5% not "55"!

[stevegrant]

How many signings do you think hinge on the fact that the player knows he'll get paid because of the FCR? Transfers that wouldn't go through otherwise? I'd guess at 55 of all transfers as an absolute maximum.

A couple of Pompey examples...

 

Jason Pearce was linked with a number of clubs a year ago after a good season with an over-achieving Bournemouth side, Peterborough agreed a fee for him and offered him £3500 a week, a significant rise from the £700 a week he was on at Bournemouth. Pompey came in and offered £7000 a week, despite clearly not being able to afford it in the context of their existing wage bill. As far as the player's concerned, he has no reason to turn down the guaranteed extra money because there's no chance that he won't actually see that money - if the club goes into admin, the FCR comes into play for any unpaid wages, and I believe the PFA has an insurance fund which covers the eventuality of a club actually going bust. Of course, the player's agent also gets a much larger fee as a result of the bigger salary negotiated/offered, so it's not in the agent's interests for the player to go to a fiscally-responsible club either.

 

David Norris was another, Ipswich were paying him about £7k a week, offered him something similar, but Pompey dived in with £15k a week.

 

As Torres said above, if the PL/FL operated in an "ordinary" industry, most potential employees wouldn't dream of accepting a job offer at a company who were offering more money but were unlikely to be able to actually fulfil the terms of that contract.

[Minsk]

Taken from SD website:

 

[h=2]What do we do?

[/h]

 

• Supporters Direct campaigns for the wider recognition of the social, cultural and economic value of sports clubs
  
• Sports clubs and competitions are increasingly being put at risk by short-term vested interests, poor financial management and inadequate standards of governance; we are the UK's leading body working to ensure that clubs are run responsibly and are financially sustainable
  
• Supporters Direct aims to create the conditions in which supporters can secure influence and ownership of sports clubs
  
• Supporters Direct provides guidance and support to groups in more than 20 countries throughout Europe
  
• Supporters Direct promotes the value of supporter ownership to sports fans, empowering them to set up supporters' trusts or become members of existing trusts
  
• Supporters Direct is a community benefit society, owned by its members
  

 

And then they go and appoint Lampitt.

 

Well, I suppose he knows all about the highlighted point; apart from the bit after the semi-colon!!!!!!!!!!!

[Truckasaurus]

Some people talk alot of sense on this thread.

 

Some people make me laugh out loud,are very witty and worth a good read.

 

Some people i may not agree with but everybody has an opinion.

 

Some people talk absolute B***cks.

 

I am looking at the bigger picture so next time you are rushed to hospital with a large metal object sticking out of your stomach,think to yourself...........................

 

God bless HMRC.

[Wes Tender]

Sports Direct's website says:-

•Sports clubs and competitions are increasingly being put at risk by short-term vested interests, poor financial management and inadequate standards of governance; we are the UK's leading body working to ensure that clubs are run responsibly and are financially sustainable

 

Well, you've got the right man for the job there; Lampitt really is the ultimate poacher turned gamekeeper. He knows all about poor financial management, the need to run clubs responsibly and in a financially sustainable way. I understand also that he knows a bit about ethical behaviour too. His last job, where there was a new owner each year these past few years also highlights his understanding of the risks of short-term vested interests.

 

His knowledge in these areas is unsurpassed. It is an inspired choice.

[Sour Mash]

Some people talk alot of sense on this thread.

 

Some people make me laugh out loud,are very witty and worth a good read.

 

Some people i may not agree with but everybody has an opinion.

 

Some people talk absolute B***cks.

 

I am looking at the bigger picture so next time you are rushed to hospital with a large metal object sticking out of your stomach,think to yourself...........................

 

God bless HMRC.

And your actual point is..............?

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

Jason Pearce was linked with a number of clubs a year ago after a good season with an over-achieving Bournemouth side, Peterborough agreed a fee for him and offered him £3500 a week, a significant rise from the £700 a week he was on at Bournemouth. Pompey came in and offered £7000 a week, despite clearly not being able to afford it in the context of their existing wage bill. As far as the player's concerned, he has no reason to turn down the guaranteed extra money because there's no chance that he won't actually see that money - if the club goes into admin, the FCR comes into play for any unpaid wages, and I believe the PFA has an insurance fund which covers the eventuality of a club actually going bust. Of course, the player's agent also gets a much larger fee as a result of the bigger salary negotiated/offered, so it's not in the agent's interests for the player to go to a fiscally-responsible club either.

 

.

 

Also, Boscombe would have sold to Peterborough or wanted the Skate money up front, if there was no FCR.They would not take the risk of selling and not receiving all their money.

 

Nobody would sign for them and nobody will sell to them (unless paid upfront)

[Sour Mash]

A couple of Pompey examples...

 

Jason Pearce was linked with a number of clubs a year ago after a good season with an over-achieving Bournemouth side, Peterborough agreed a fee for him and offered him £3500 a week, a significant rise from the £700 a week he was on at Bournemouth. Pompey came in and offered £7000 a week, despite clearly not being able to afford it in the context of their existing wage bill. As far as the player's concerned, he has no reason to turn down the guaranteed extra money because there's no chance that he won't actually see that money - if the club goes into admin, the FCR comes into play for any unpaid wages, and I believe the PFA has an insurance fund which covers the eventuality of a club actually going bust. Of course, the player's agent also gets a much larger fee as a result of the bigger salary negotiated/offered, so it's not in the agent's interests for the player to go to a fiscally-responsible club either.

 

David Norris was another, Ipswich were paying him about £7k a week, offered him something similar, but Pompey dived in with £15k a week.

 

As Torres said above, if the PL/FL operated in an "ordinary" industry, most potential employees wouldn't dream of accepting a job offer at a company who were offering more money but were unlikely to be able to actually fulfil the terms of that contract.

Not saying there aren't any cases where it would have made a difference, but how many realistically throughout football in the last few years, to the point where it would affect overall wages/transfer fees paid out across the industry? Doubt it crosses too many minds when players are signing up for 200k a week at Man City etc. Just a guess regardless.

[trousers]

No accounts for 2011? http://supporters-direct.coop/publications/?dc=sd_accounts

[holepuncture]

http://supporters-direct.coop/news/item/?n=15327&cat=sd_eng

 

Friday, May 25, 2012

 

Supporters Direct today confirmed the appointment of David Lampitt as its new Chief Executive effective from 25 June.

 

David, who qualified as a chartered accountant with Ernst and Young, worked for 7 years in the Governance Division at The Football Association where he was Head of Financial Regulation and Head of Football Integrity until 2010. He has served as English football’s representative on the UEFA Club Licensing Committee and was one of the key contributors to UEFA’s Financial Fair Play project.

 

From May 2010 to February 2012 David was Chief Executive of Portsmouth FC. Prior to the club’s recent administration due to the collapse of its owner’s business, David successfully led the club out of administration in 2010 and safeguarded its survival through a major restructuring programme.

 

Speaking on behalf of Supporters Direct, the Chair, Dame Pauline Green, said: “I am absolutely delighted that we have managed to attract someone of David’s calibre and knowledge of the issues about which Supporters Direct cares so passionately. He is highly respected both domestically and in Europe for his work within football over the last 10 years. This and his first-hand experience at Portsmouth of the challenges facing so many of our clubs gives him unique insight into our work in the UK and Europe to promote sustainable spectator sports clubs based on supporters’ involvement and community ownership.”

 

Lampitt said: “It is a real privilege to be given this opportunity to help represent the interests of sport’s most important stakeholders. I look forward to working with some outstanding staff who should be rightly proud of Supporters Direct’s achievements, attracting over £30m of new finance into football and rugby league clubs since 2000. These sports continue to face significant economic challenges and I am very pleased to play a part in promoting the value that supporters and community involvement can bring to that process.”

 

Supporters Direct’s annual conference, being held in London in conjunction with the Football Supporters Federation as The Fans Weekend on the 7th and 8th of July, will provide an ideal opportunity for supporters to meet the new chief executive and hear what he has to say.

 

 

PMSL

 

Lampitt, the King of Spin!

[trousers]

Sky Sports ‏@SkySports Sky Sports understands Crystal Palace have won the race to sign Portsmouth defender Joel Ward. #PFC #CPFC #LUFC #ITFC http://bit.ly/KZQgwa

[Saint J 77]

David Lampitt brought in to see how many more FA league rules have loop holes the skates can exploit again!

[Faz]

Sky Sports ‏@SkySports Sky Sports understands Crystal Palace have won the race to sign Portsmouth defender Joel Ward. #PFC #CPFC #LUFC #ITFC http://bit.ly/KZQgwa

 

Well CP aren't exactly flush themselves so that won't generate much cash.

[Shrek]

Darlington relagted four leagues... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18209679

[buctootim]

Darlington relagted four leagues... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18209679

 

So the moral of the story is you will punished much more severely if you dont promise to pay back creditors than if you promise to pay them back but don't, twice.

[Truckasaurus]

I think my point has been proved beyond all resonable doubt.

 

God bless HMRC

[Saint_John]

Judge David Richards has written up his reasons for keeping the FCR.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/1372.html

 

I haven't read it all yet (there is ALOT OF LEGAL ARGUMENT) but he sounds as if he doesn't like the FCR but can only make a judgement on the law.

3 These proceedings are not concerned with whether giving priority to football creditors is socially or morally justified. The issue is one purely of law, whether the provisions which together accord this priority are void and of no effect on the grounds that they are contrary to insolvency law.

189 The FL should not regard the result of this case as an endorsement of its approach to football creditors. It is, as I said at the start, a decision on a challenge brought on a particular legal basis.

 

HMRC were challenging on "anti-deprivation rule and the pari passu principle" and the Judge's conclusions are

187 It follows that in most circumstances in which the relevant provisions of the FL's articles and Insolvency Policy will operate, they will not be rendered void by the anti-deprivation rule or the pari passu principle. It may be that either or both might be engaged in particular circumstances, for example in the event of an administration or liquidation commencing after the end of a season but where there has been no application of article 80.2. Whether that is so would have to be decided in the context of a real case if and when it ever arose. The right course in the present proceedings is to decline to make the declarations sought by HMRC.

188 The overall approach of HMRC seemed at times to be treat the anti-deprivation rule as a general anti-avoidance principle. If the effect of the relevant provisions taken as a whole was to produce a different order of priorities than prescribed by insolvency law, they must be void. This is to misunderstand the anti-deprivation rule which is specific in what it prohibits. Broader or different restrictions would require statutory intervention, as has occurred in the cases covered by ss238-246 of the Insolvency Act 1986

[Yeovil Saint]

Does the Saints Trust still exist? It's still listed as a member organisation of Supporters Direct on the SD website and would be going to the SD AGM in June, one assumes if they still are in existance? Can they ask questions about this ridiculous appointment?

[dvaughanwilliams]

How many signings do you think hinge on the fact that the player knows he'll get paid because of the FCR? Transfers that wouldn't go through otherwise? I'd guess at 5% of all transfers as an absolute maximum.

 

I think that you're approaching this from the wrong way. I agree that players don't think about the FCR at the moment. However, consider the situation in Scotland: there is no FCR and Rangers have been able to make players redundant and renege on the contracts. I think that from now on, players in Scotland and players who are offered contracts in Scotland will think twice about it.

 

If the FCR were abolished or amended in this country then I think that there would be no immediate change, but after the first high profile set of redundancies or unpaid wages, there would be a sudden change.

 

Footballers who were in demand and had a choice of clubs would probably get advice from their agent about the clubs finances and it would become a consideration in future. For the majority of players, where just getting a club is the priority, these financial concerns won't play a part.

[TopGun]

I think that you're approaching this from the wrong way. I agree that players don't think about the FCR at the moment. However, consider the situation in Scotland: there is no FCR and Rangers have been able to make players redundant and renege on the contracts. I think that from now on, players in Scotland and players who are offered contracts in Scotland will think twice about it.

 

If the FCR were abolished or amended in this country then I think that there would be no immediate change, but after the first high profile set of redundancies or unpaid wages, there would be a sudden change.

 

Footballers who were in demand and had a choice of clubs would probably get advice from their agent about the clubs finances and it would become a consideration in future. For the majority of players, where just getting a club is the priority, these financial concerns won't play a part.

 

Good analysis and explanation.

[trousers]

Does the Saints Trust still exist? It's still listed as a member organisation of Supporters Direct on the SD website and would be going to the SD AGM in June, one assumes if they still are in existance? Can they ask questions about this ridiculous appointment?

 

'Saints Trust' are listed on the Supporters Direct website...but...the link goes to a defunct website...

 

Make of that what you will.