Points Deduction, Who's Next And When Will It Stop?

[G STAR RAM]

28 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Maybe I am getting confused but this is what it says on the Companies House website:

each year, every company must file a set of accounts with Companies House, which show how a company has performed over the accounting period. This is required whether the company is trading or not.

And this is what is says on another government website:

All companies must send their accounts and reports to Companies House every year, whether:

private or public

large or small

trading or non-trading

If you submit accounts late, the law imposes an automatic penalty. The period allowed to file your accounts depends on whether these are your first accounts since incorporation or subsequent accounts.

I know anyone can object to a company being struck off but surely a creditor isn’t going to let it stop there and if they did and the company continues not to file their accounts, isn’t the penalty doubled each year or something? (admittedly small fry compared to the companies likely other debts).

I guess we are both right. It clearly states that companies MUST file their accounts. Technically they don’t have to but, as with all legal requirements and laws, if you breach/ignore them there will be consequences. A fine might not deter a club (or it’s parent company) from filing their accounts but I think the EFL rules (section 16) state that sanctions will be applied if they don’t file their accounts with the registrar of companies (Companies House?). 

Anyway, going back to the original point, didn’t DCFC file their accounts (and therefore were not in breach - well not until administration) because they were part of a larger group? Charlton have to file their accounts.

DCFC stopped filing their accounts after 2018 and are in breach.

However, I assume not struck as there would be objections.

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

DCFC stopped filing their accounts after 2018 and are in breach.

However, I assume not struck as there would be objections.

I thought you’d said they had never filed any accounts?

Not filing your accounts is a criminal offence (as per the following extract from Gov.UK) so, to say you “should” is surely a little misleading.

I guess in DCFC’s case, it was all overtaken by the subsequent administration. I can’t imagine if we hadn’t gone into administration we would still be allowed to be in breach after all this time without some kind of sanctions.

 

Not filing your confirmation statements, annual returns or accounts is a criminal offence - and directors or LLP designated members could be personally fined in the criminal courts

[Crewton]

20 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I thought you’d said they had never filed any accounts?

Not filing your accounts is a criminal offence (as per the following extract from Gov.UK) so, to say you “should” is surely a little misleading.

I guess in DCFC’s case, it was all overtaken by the subsequent administration. I can’t imagine if we hadn’t gone into administration we would still be allowed to be in breach after all this time without some kind of sanctions.

 

Not filing your confirmation statements, annual returns or accounts is a criminal offence - and directors or LLP designated members could be personally fined in the criminal courts

They're criminal offences, but the penalties are no more punitive than it is for littering, unless persistent breaches lead to personal court appearance for Directors or a striking-off petition against the company. The damage is more reputational, but in football that's a minor irritant.

[Tamworthram]

2 minutes ago, Crewton said:

They're criminal offences, but the penalties are no more punitive than it is for littering, unless persistent breaches lead to personal court appearance for Directors or a striking-off petition against the company. The damage is more reputational, but in football that's a minor irritant.

Fair point but, kind of supports what I was saying. If DCFC hadn’t gone into administration but still chose not to file their accounts since 2018 I think that would count as persistent breaches which wouldn’t be allowed to continue without more significant penalties (including some kind of sanctions from the EFL I would imagine).

[Comrade 86]

6 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Maybe I am getting confused but this is what it says on the Companies House website:

each year, every company must file a set of accounts with Companies House, which show how a company has performed over the accounting period. This is required whether the company is trading or not.

And this is what is says on another government website:

All companies must send their accounts and reports to Companies House every year, whether:

private or public

large or small

trading or non-trading

If you submit accounts late, the law imposes an automatic penalty. The period allowed to file your accounts depends on whether these are your first accounts since incorporation or subsequent accounts.

I know anyone can object to a company being struck off but surely a creditor isn’t going to let it stop there and if they did and the company continues not to file their accounts, isn’t the penalty doubled each year or something? (admittedly small fry compared to the companies likely other debts).

I guess we are both right. It clearly states that companies MUST file their accounts. Technically they don’t have to but, as with all legal requirements and laws, if you breach/ignore them there will be consequences. A fine might not deter a club (or it’s parent company) from filing their accounts but I think the EFL rules (section 16) state that sanctions will be applied if they don’t file their accounts with the registrar of companies (Companies House?). 

Anyway, going back to the original point, didn’t DCFC file their accounts (and therefore were not in breach - well not until administration) because they were part of a larger group? Charlton have to file their accounts.

They'll get a fine, that's about it. The size of the fine will be down to how late they submit. There could be what the revenue refer to as 'exceptional circumstances' which would preclude any punishment, but the scope of what is considered is pretty limited and verges on the acts of God type stuff - death, fire, long-term absence of key individuals and the like.

If they are late again next year, that's when the revenue will get super pissy, though I do suspect they might be in a bit of bother already, in financial terms at least. 

[G STAR RAM]

6 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

I thought you’d said they had never filed any accounts?

Not filing your accounts is a criminal offence (as per the following extract from Gov.UK) so, to say you “should” is surely a little misleading.

I guess in DCFC’s case, it was all overtaken by the subsequent administration. I can’t imagine if we hadn’t gone into administration we would still be allowed to be in breach after all this time without some kind of sanctions.

 

Not filing your confirmation statements, annual returns or accounts is a criminal offence - and directors or LLP designated members could be personally fined in the criminal courts

I could tell you hundreds of people that have set up limited companies, never filed any accounts, had the company struck off and never faced any criminal charges.

DCFC were filing accounts right up until 2018, none filed since then.

[Tamworthram]

17 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I could tell you hundreds of people that have set up limited companies, never filed any accounts, had the company struck off and never faced any criminal charges.

DCFC were filing accounts right up until 2018, none filed since then.

Hundreds? Seriously? What circles do you mix in? 
 

I’m not surprised that hardly anyone actually faces “criminal charges”. I only copy and pasted what it said on the Gov.UK website that it is a criminal offence. I would imagine the overwhelming majority just receive fines and may just have their company struck off eventually. It sounds a bit like speeding. Speeding is a criminal offence but most people just receive a fixed penalty notice I reckon. If you don’t pay your penalty or continue to offend (clocking up more penalty points -akin to continuing to fail to file your accounts) the consequences become more serious.
 

But that doesn’t alter the fact that accounts “must” be filed and not “should” be as you stated. In DCFC‘s case, I suspect, as I said earlier, that our administration superseded any further action.

In Charlton’s case (and any other company) I don’t believe they can continually chose not to bother filing their accounts as you were suggesting without significant consequences.

[Ram-Alf]

32 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Hundreds? Seriously? What circles do you mix in? 

I think G Star is an accountant 🤷‍♂️ or  a Postman 😁

[G STAR RAM]

50 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Hundreds? Seriously? What circles do you mix in? 
 

I’m not surprised that hardly anyone actually faces “criminal charges”. I only copy and pasted what it said on the Gov.UK website that it is a criminal offence. I would imagine the overwhelming majority just receive fines and may just have their company struck off eventually. It sounds a bit like speeding. Speeding is a criminal offence but most people just receive a fixed penalty notice I reckon. If you don’t pay your penalty or continue to offend (clocking up more penalty points -akin to continuing to fail to file your accounts) the consequences become more serious.
 

But that doesn’t alter the fact that accounts “must” be filed and not “should” be as you stated. In DCFC‘s case, I suspect, as I said earlier, that our administration superseded any further action.

In Charlton’s case (and any other company) I don’t believe they can continually chose not to bother filing their accounts as you were suggesting without significant consequences.

I've worked in accountancy and auditing for 27 years.

I wasn't suggesting Charlton wouldn't file their accounts.

Was just pointing out Derby have not filed their for over 6 years and nothing has become of it, the reason being they would not be struck off because their creditors would object to the striking off application m

[Tamworthram]

15 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I've worked in accountancy and auditing for 27 years.

I wasn't suggesting Charlton wouldn't file their accounts.

Was just pointing out Derby have not filed their for over 6 years and nothing has become of it, the reason being they would not be struck off because their creditors would object to the striking off application m

Well you started off by suggesting Charlton wouldn’t have to file their accounts on the basis that they “should” rather than “must” do so. As for Derby, surely the reason nothing has ever come of it is because we went into administration which changed the picture somewhat. But I accept your much greater experience if you’re suggesting there wouldn’t be any consequences for Derby (or it’s directors) if the original company was still trading but they still hadn’t filed any accounts for six years. (As a slight aside, Derby went into administration in 2021 so really we’re only talking about 3 years not 6) I find it hard to believe but, if you say so.

Out of interest, of the hundreds you could name, how many were start ups that never got off the ground (and therefore a little bit different to an operating limited company) and therefore being struck off was of no consequence?

[Mucker1884]

29 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I've worked in accountancy and auditing for 27 years.

I wasn't suggesting Charlton wouldn't file their accounts.

Was just pointing out Derby have not filed their for over 6 years and nothing has become of it, the reason being they would not be struck off because their creditors would object to the striking off application m

Are we talking about "Mel's DCFC" here? Is that still an entity? 🤷‍♂️

And if so, I assume it has no bearing on anything relating to the current DCFC... 

 

Clowes' Derby County (The Rams) Limited was only incorporated in June 22, as we know, and I seem to recall them filing their accounts up to June 23 (Although I've no idea whether they were late or not).

 

#confused 🐏

 

[Comrade 86]

Another 2 point deduction for Everton confirmed on BBC Sport site. I wonder when we'll hear the outcome of the Gump's appeal?

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

10 minutes ago, Comrade 86 said:

Another 2 point deduction for Everton confirmed on BBC Sport site. I wonder when we'll hear the outcome of the Gump's appeal?

 

They'll need to add more than 2 points after the brazen way forest persist with broccoli worship and promotion of offensive slogans such as "you reds" and desecration of the already terrible "mull of kintyre" surely bringing the game into disrepute.

[Crewton]

1 hour ago, Comrade 86 said:

Another 2 point deduction for Everton confirmed on BBC Sport site. I wonder when we'll hear the outcome of the Gump's appeal?

 

Red Dogs now advocating that Stav should go down the same arrogant rich-man's route of suing their governing body that other FFP cheats like QPR, Leicester, Bournemouth and Watford have either done or threatened to do.

These are the same people who said that Derby should accept their punishment without complaint. "Notcher" is the poster who was adamant that HMRC don't do deals (still convinced of that, sweetie?)

[Comrade 86]

29 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Red Dogs now advocating that Stav should go down the same arrogant rich-man's route of suing their governing body that other FFP cheats like QPR, Leicester, Bournemouth and Watford have either done or threatened to do.

These are the same people who said that Derby should accept their punishment without complaint. "Notcher" is the poster who was adamant that HMRC don't do deals (still convinced of that, sweetie?)

What a pair of lemons. As we found, stick a gun to their heads and they'll remove your ticket. I wonder if Strummer knows that his moniker is a South London colloquialism for w****r? 

'What's yer name pal?'

'Derek, but my mates call me Strummer...'

'Figures...' 

Edited April 8 by Comrade 86

[Ram-Alf]

8 minutes ago, Comrade 86 said:

What a pair of lemons. As we found, stick a gun to their heads and they'll remove your ticket. I wonder if Strummer knows that his moniker is a South London colloquialism for w****r? 

'What's yer name pal?'

'Derek, but my mates call me Strummer...'

'Figures...' 

I can confirm this, My mate who lives in Fulham is called "Strummer" Just don't get how they get that name from Walter 😁 

[Comrade 86]

2 minutes ago, Ram-Alf said:

I can confirm this, My mate who lives in Fulham is called "Strummer" Just don't get how they get that name from Walter 😁 

Not rhyming slang, think of the motion used to strum a guitar and you won't be too far away.

[TigerTedd]

3 hours ago, Comrade 86 said:

Another 2 point deduction for Everton confirmed on BBC Sport site.

That’ll teach them not to do whatever it was they did again. 2 whole points. That’s two hard fought draws that were a wages of time. Plummets them all the way down to 16th, still 2pts ahead of Forest with a game in hand.

Hardly worth the agro was it. 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

35 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

That’ll teach them not to do whatever it was they did again. 2 whole points. That’s two hard fought draws that were a wages of time. Plummets them all the way down to 16th, still 2pts ahead of Forest with a game in hand.

Hardly worth the agro was it. 

13 games without a win and 8 points deducted or almost another 3 straight defeats on top and 16 games without a win in real money. Almost half a season and still not in the relegation zone.  The bottom of that league really is bobbins this season.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

2 hours ago, Crewton said:

Red Dogs now advocating that Stav should go down the same arrogant rich-man's route of suing their governing body that other FFP cheats like QPR, Leicester, Bournemouth and Watford have either done or threatened to do.

These are the same people who said that Derby should accept their punishment without complaint. "Notcher" is the poster who was adamant that HMRC don't do deals (still convinced of that, sweetie?)

What's he strumming.  Bet it involves a relative.