Curtains Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I tend to agree both Saints and Foxes went into administration recently and now spend more than us. Why does this happen. Creditors lose out big time. Don't want Clubs going to the wall but the present system is unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SillyBilly Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Should be relegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Are we the only club to go into administration for 20 mins and still owe everybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Surely there should be a tougher penalty than this? What can club owners learn from it otherwise? They're still spending money they haven't got and end up back at square one again, ala Portsmouth. It's daft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Why should there be any penalty for going into administration? Going into administration means bringing in a 3rd party in to run your business and try to get things back on track. Some companies that go into administration end up paying everything that they owe. Now if it is going into a CVA or the like then I understand because people end up getting screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSD Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I reckon the government should do something about this. Look at Rangers, they owe 75million in tax. That could have been spent on improving local services for people. They should get tougher on club owners IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 . Come on m8 let's all go into administration and clear some of our debts and pay 1p in the pound tax. Ludicrous. As I said there is a distinct difference between administration and paying 1p in the pound. The latter can only be done with the agreement of some of the creditors, I agree under these circumstances clubs will have gained a distince advantage and action should be taken but administration is different in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p.shilton Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Do you think that the penny has finally dropped with the board and Nige that you can basically spend money you don't have with no consequences apart from a slap on the wrist? What is the point of us running the club properly if no-one else is and they are getting away with it time after time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I reckon the government should do something about this. Look at Rangers, they owe 75million in tax. That could have been spent on improving local services for people. They should get tougher on club owners IMO. Rangers do not owe £75million in tax. They currently under investigation and if tribunal goes against them they could owe up to £75million after fines and penalties. They currently owe £9million in unpaid PAYE. HMR&C are a government body and therefore it appears that the government are taking action. The SPL also supposedly have fit and proper tests on owners...how did the owner of the biggest club in their division slip the net?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Do you think that the penny has finally dropped with the board and Nige that you can basically spend money you don't have with no consequences apart from a slap on the wrist? What is the point of us running the club properly if no-one else is and they are getting away with it time after time? I think if HMR&C are prepared to take on Glasgow Rangers there should be a few more club owners out there that won't be sleeping too easily at the moment. HMR&C are tightening down across the board and I think this could be the start of numerous cases taken against clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p.shilton Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Good- hopefully this will take away the advantages of spending millions on players that you can't afford while we have to watch dross week in week out because we are being "responsible". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TelTheRam Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 The Rangers situation shows just how rediculous a 10 point deduction is. They were in second place 4 points pehind Celtic. They are now - well, in second place 14 points behind, but still 9 points clear of third and will probably finish there. Do they still qualify for Europe with second place? Its a joke. Lets get this clear - these clubs are cheating the rest of us that pay their taxes in full and on time, and the penalty for cheating should be, at least, demotion to last place. So Rangers and Portsmouth should now be bottom of their respective divisions. A second offence should result in automatic relegation. On Sky Sports News this morning the administrator for Portsmouth said that 30% of Championship clubs have a wage bill greater than 100% of their income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p.shilton Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 we haven't got a wage bill of 100 quid, never mind 100%! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 . Do Portsmouth come into this category. I'm sure I read somewhere other Clubs have allegedly done it . No need to name them. I think the first time they went into administration they agreed with creditors to pay x pence in the pound, of course by the time they did that they were already going down so suffered nothing at all. I believe Leicester, Leeds and Luton off the top of my head all did the same. On the other hand we went into administration but still paid off our debts in full, would a 10 point deduction for us have been justified? All I am saying is that I do not understand why administration automatically brings the penalty as nothing wrong has been done at that point other than a club recognising that it is having financial difficulties and trying to take action to remedy the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I understand where you are coming from now but the powers that be hold great credence on Administration and a Club should not get to that point and come out of it better off. The Rams going into Administration for 20 mins was a technicality to allow a takeover. I also understand where you come from but if we are going to go down the route of punishing clubs who have gained financial advantage by not paying people on time I imagine there would be a lot of clubs on negative points! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 The Rangers situation shows just how rediculous a 10 point deduction is. They were in second place 4 points pehind Celtic. They are now - well, in second place 14 points behind, but still 9 points clear of third and will probably finish there. Do they still qualify for Europe with second place? Its a joke. Lets get this clear - these clubs are cheating the rest of us that pay their taxes in full and on time, and the penalty for cheating should be, at least, demotion to last place. So Rangers and Portsmouth should now be bottom of their respective divisions. A second offence should result in automatic relegation. On Sky Sports News this morning the administrator for Portsmouth said that 30% of Championship clubs have a wage bill greater than 100% of their income. That is a pointless stat though, for instance Forests wage bill was 106% of their turnover but it was their owner funding it so no external sources were suffering. It would be more relevant for the administrator to say how many of that 30% were running up external debts to pay these wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p.shilton Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 that won't be allowed when FFP comes in though will it? Still not sure I understand the implications of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaspode Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Rangers do not owe £75million in tax. They currently under investigation and if tribunal goes against them they could owe up to £75million after fines and penalties. They currently owe £9million in unpaid PAYE. HMR&C are a government body and therefore it appears that the government are taking action. The SPL also supposedly have fit and proper tests on owners...how did the owner of the biggest club in their division slip the net?! According to the owner, Rangers owe £45M in unpaid tax - as I understood, the £9M in the admin application was HMRC forcing the issue so that they could appoint the administrator rather than Rangers. White also mentioned the £75M owed to HMRC as unpaid tax + the penalties and fines that they knew about (possibly more). Apparently, the administrator is also trying to find the whereabouts of £24M from advance season ticket sales that seems to have been 'mislaid' in the accounts....'fit and proper' is a farce and doesn't stop unfit owners - if you saw the recent documentary, there was an example of a foreign consortium looking to buy clubs and stating (on a hidden camera) that they would simply find someone 'clean' to face up the bid and ensure that they were seen as acceptable..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donny Ram Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Why should there be any penalty for going into administration? Going into administration means bringing in a 3rd party in to run your business and try to get things back on track. Some companies that go into administration end up paying everything that they owe. Now if it is going into a CVA or the like then I understand because people end up getting screwed. Not so, going in to administration under the current preferred football creditor rules is unfair and costs small business enterprises hundreds of thousands of pounds in unpaid bills by football clubs. Try having a small business and being taken for a few grand and then tell your family that there's no summer holiday because Leicester, Leeds or another club haven't paid you and you are only going to get 14p in the pound or 5p in the pound being proposed by the administrator. Sorry but you are so wide of the mark in your statement that I am astounded. The public seem to have limited knowledge of what administration means to so many small companies and the impact on their families. HMRC also tend to miss out on a few million in taxes, but the impact on small business people and their families is far greater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 . Which begs the question why does DCFC worry so much about finances or is that too simplistic I still believe we could potentially be one step ahead of a lot of clubs in our division, as I mentioned in another post if HMR&C are prepared to take on a club as big as Rangers and potentially put them out of business then nobody in our division is safe from them. I believe that the supposed tax scam that Rangers are being taken on over has been used by many clubs in England too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.