Breaking News Court Case Adjourned

[united we stand]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southend_utd/8801045.stm


Southend United given stay of execution

Southend United have been given a further stay of execution from a winding-up order brought by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. The League Two club, who have faced two sets of insolvency proceedings in the last 12 months, were in the High Court over an unpaid tax bill of £238,710.
The Shrimpers now have 14 days to submit evidence that they are a financially viable business.
Othwerwise they could be placed into administration on 2 August.
HMRC told the Court that Southend's history of defaulting on payments demonstrated they were insolvent.
However the club said they had paid all their previous bills, albeit late, and that they would be in line for a £186,000 payment from a sell-on clause in former midfielder Nicky Bailey's contract after he joined Middlesbrough yesterday.
Southend also argued that they have made significant strides to put the club on a firmer footing.

somewhat different to what the Echo has said then ! I said earlier their had to be more to it

I hope/assume that we had another defence lined up in Bailey's move had not gone through . As an aside and maybe going off topic but the Charlton website says £225,000, we say £186,000 , diff 17.5%. Is this VAT- how does this work on transfers

 

[ElstreeBlue]

If they did not submit any sort of credible argument that would be beyond belief.

It's incredible the way in which the future of our club is being gambled.

No wonder our leader didn't want to be around for this hearing. Maybe the 2 week adjournment was to enable him to return from holiday and face the music in person?

 

[devonexile]

Did you know Peter Clarke cost us £1m over 3 years?

A third of that was his transfer fee, leaving about 600K divided by three years, of which about 15 to 20% would have been overheads, ie Employers NI, leaving Clarke on about £150 to £175K a year, about par for the course for a Championship defender, which, after all, is what we signed him as. If we hadn’t signed him we would have signed somebody else, so not withstanding that the take of the monies quoted were not all trousered by him, you also have to deduct what his replacement would have cost, before you arrive at Clarke’s true drain on the Blues funds.

It wasn’t Clarkes fault that we agreed his xfer fee, it wasn’t his fault we did not insert a relegation clause in his contract, it probably wasn’t his fault that he was not up to Championship standard for much of his first season here. The blame lies in part, with Tilly for wanting him but mainly with Martin for agreeing the fee and negotiating the terms of his contract.

And in any case, given the replacement monies for an alternative player signed in 2007, the real cost to the club in respect of Clarke is a lot less than £1m. It is, and always was, just another pathetic excuse from Martin for the pitiful state our Football club is in.

 

[Smiffy]

It doesn't say it does, its a demonstration of income and an attempt to evidence viability of the ongoing business

You said it. An attempt.

Relying on sell on clauses is ****ing ludicrous and a disgusting way to run our football club.

 

[GrumpyBlue]

I think we should ask that Octopus if we are going to go bust.

Yeah it seems to have a better idea than most

 

[pickledseal]

The supermarket giant is believed to have transferred over the £238,710 needed to cover the club's latest debt to the taxman. However, that has not satisfied HMRC, which revealed to the court that the club is in default of another VAT liability that was due for payment yesterday.

from guardian

 

[class]

A third of that was his transfer fee, leaving about 600K divided by three years, of which about 15 to 20% would have been overheads, ie Employers NI, leaving Clarke on about £150 to £175K a year, about par for the course for a Championship defender, which, after all, is what we signed him as. If we hadn’t signed him we would have signed somebody else, so not withstanding that the take of the monies quoted were not all trousered by him, you also have to deduct what his replacement would have cost, before you arrive at Clarke’s true drain on the Blues funds.



It wasn’t Clarkes fault that we agreed his xfer fee, it wasn’t his fault we did not insert a relegation clause in his contract, it probably wasn’t his fault that he was not up to Championship standard for much of his first season here. The blame lies in part, with Tilly for wanting him but mainly with Martin for agreeing the fee and negotiating the terms of his contract.

And in any case, given the replacement monies for an alternative player signed in 2007, the real cost to the club in respect of Clarke is a lot less than £1m. It is, and always was, just another pathetic excuse from Martin for the pitiful state our Football club is in.

I think the original post was tongue in cheek....

 

[Firestorm]

Do you mean the Charterhouse one Gary?..If so we obviously were not worried about HMRC...after all we use them as a bank these days.

Not quite, I thought that RM said on the day the Charterhouse case was reported in the Echo , that it would be paid before the court date.

The next Day HMRC hit us with the second one (which they managed to get an earlier date for)

So it doesn't appear to be a case of not being worried about the HMRC case, more of not expecting them to hit us with one quite so quickly (for the May dues at least)

 

[Smiffy]

So they also want June's money on top then.

 

[davemoly]

BBC Essex have just reported that the outstanding tax bill has been settled. However the revenue are not satisfied as they believe that SUFC are not a financial viable concern and wish the club be placed in Administration. The judge has given SUFC 14 days to prepare its argument.

 

[Firestorm]

If they did not submit any sort of credible argument that would be beyond belief.

Correct and according to the BBC there was a defence and as an adjournement was granted someone thought it credible

 

[devonexile]

We are relying on the 186K ?? (is that the correct amount due to us) to pay this bill...what if Bailey had not moved on this week.

It is a farce.

When do we get this money and is any or most of it caught up in staged payments between Charlton and Middlesborough? I would be amazed if this money is with us in time to play any part in settling the debt before the next hearing.

 

[class]

So they also want June's money on top then.

The Guardian quote mentions VAT, not PAYE. Therefore £238k + June Paye + Qtr to June VAT + surcharges + interest.

 

[mattytheshrimper]

the impression I got from ron and his video blogs was that he would pay it all off today. by the sounds of it they must have shown something to prove they money will soon be there. surprised its not all sorted by now though.

 

[Smiffy]

BBC Essex have just reported that the outstanding tax bill has been settled. However the revenue are not satisfied as they believe that SUFC are not a financial viable concern and wish the club be placed in Administration. The judge has given SUFC 14 days to prepare its argument.

So we HAVE settled the PAYE for Apr/May some £238,000.

We HAVE NOT settled the PAYE/VAT for June, which is probably another £200,000 or so.

HMRC have applied for SUFC to be placed into Administration.

SUFC have 2 weeks to detail the viability of the business.

SUFC will be placed in Administration on Aug 2nd, IF the judge is not satisfied.

 

[Hooly]

Didn't Charlton's website say we were due for £220k? where did the other £34k go?

Probably VAT? £220k excluding 17.5% VAT is about £187k, per uws note above. As far as I know player sales are standard rated transactions, though it's a shame they don't use a vesion of the old style Margin Scheme for second-hand vehicles. If you didn't make a profit then you didn't pay VAT & let's face it we make profits on precious few players.

Mind whether Ron would bother paying VAT, I can't imagine.

 

[devonexile]

I think the original post was tongue in cheek....

So did I, then I wasn't sure cause I've seen the argument trotted out before in defense of Martin, so I covered both options. In any case I find myself having a serious humour loss when it comes to the current situation facing the Blues.

 

[Smiffy]

A statement from the club would be ****ing nice.

Confused.com/whatthe****isgoingon

 

[Cricko]

So we HAVE settled the PAYE for Apr/May some £238,000.

We HAVE NOT settled the PAYE/VAT for June, which is probably another £200,000 or so.

HMRC have applied for SUFC to be placed into Administration.

SUFC have 2 weeks to detail the viability of the business.

SUFC will be placed in Administration on Aug 2nd, IF the judge is not satisfied.

The Guardian article in full.

Southend United have 14 days to prove they have a viable financial future or the League Two club will be placed into administration by order of the high court.

At the high court today, Mr Justice Newey heard evidence from lawyers for HM Revenue and Customs who asserted that Southend are "incontrovertibly insolvent". HMRC added that the club is "in persistent default" of payments as and when they fall due.

Justice Newey ordered Southend to provide formal evidence of their future financial security by 22 July. The parties will return to the high court for that to be considered on 2 August.

The club have relied on the support of Sainsbury's supermarket, which has entered into an agreement to purchase their Roots Hall ground. The supermarket giant is believed to have transferred over the £238,710 needed to cover the club's latest debt to the taxman. However, that has not satisfied HMRC, which revealed to the court that the club is in default of another VAT liability that was due for payment yesterday.

Adding to Southend's woes is a winding-up petition relating to a debt believed to be £140,000 that was due to be heard next Wednesday.

 

[pickledseal]

A statement from the club would be ****ing nice.

Confused.com/whatthe****isgoingon

I know.... we need all the info in one place Echo/Guardian/BBC all only have part of the story.
It would be nice if the OS article was truthful too ;)