Pre-Match Thread HMRC v SUFC - FINAL hearing on 1st March. DISMISSED

[Carl]

He can't just say, it was paid here's my proof. The other party needs to independently verify the information and go through their records.

If they took extracts / kept their bank statements it should be straightforward. If not, then they will have to contact the bank to get copies of their bank statements. They should have copies as its a requirement (Limited companies must keep records for 6 years)

The money may have been received by the recipient but has been allocated to another account, or the money may have been received but with no reference and as such they may have it on their ledger as unknown monies (although they should have instigated a return to sender with their bank long before now)

I'm no expert of being pulled into court regularly, but if I was arguing that I'd paid something, getting a copy of the bank statement or similar is probably the first thing I'd do. Just saying.

 

[flangejackrabbit]

I'm no expert of being pulled into court regularly, but if I was arguing that I'd paid something, getting a copy of the bank statement or similar is probably the first thing I'd do. Just saying.

I'm expecting there is a difference of opinion as to exactly how much was actually owed.

 

[defender05]

I'm no expert of being pulled into court regularly, but if I was arguing that I'd paid something, getting a copy of the bank statement or similar is probably the first thing I'd do. Just saying.

That's true but it doesn't say where the payment ended up that's for them to find.

 

[Carl]

I'm expecting there is a difference of opinion as to exactly how much was actually owed.

Maybe - but you do realise that tax is self declared? And if it is calculated by HMRC (for example in an investigation), there is then a full appeals and reconsiderations, followed by tribunal process that you can follow before the liability is confirmed - it then only goes to court if it’s not paid after all that.

So on the balance of probabilities, I’d guess it’s more likely it’s just unpaid.

 

[kentblues]

All speculation. It might be the amount paid that is disputed. It might be whether it was paid is disputed. It might be an allocation of funds issue. VAT is self declared and supposedly he didn't pay £2m of that. Got all the way to trial only for it to be admitted by HMRC/Fraud Office that actually there was absolutely zero evidence that anything was owed at all. How can that happen.

So we can assume what we want or what we hope but their likely is a valid question for investigation else it wouldn't have been adjourned.

 

[JD]

That's true but it doesn't say where the payment ended up that's for them to find.

Well if Ron sent the payment (or office staff did) then they will know what sort code and account number it went to - or at least their bank would be able to tell them.
Give that info to court/HMRC - it’s either one of HMRC’s accounts or it’s not.

 

[Blue Yonder]

Maybe - but you do realise that tax is self declared? And if it is calculated by HMRC (for example in an investigation), there is then a full appeals and reconsiderations, followed by tribunal process that you can follow before the liability is confirmed - it then only goes to court if it’s not paid after all that.

So on the balance of probabilities, I’d guess it’s more likely it’s just unpaid.

You have a great deal more confidence in the competence and accuracy of a department underpaid and under staffed for decade(s) than many. The VAT fraud fiasco for a start. On the balance of probabilities I’d make it 50/50 Ron ducking and diving v HMRC **** up.

 

[Shrimperjohn]

Case adjourned

So what does this mean exactly?

 

[dusterman]

Matt Slater was on the Overlap with Gary Neville and Jamie Carragher and didn’t mention our plight.

What a ‘missed’ opportunity.

 

[Chrisb]

Matt Slater was on the Overlap with Gary Neville and Jamie Carragher and didn’t mention our plight.

What a ‘missed’ opportunity.

I do feel that if we weren't NL we would get more of a mention - the irony is we wouldn't be where we are if things had been better.

 

[Carl]

You have a great deal more confidence in the competence and accuracy of a department underpaid and under staffed for decade(s) than many. The VAT fraud fiasco for a start. On the balance of probabilities I’d make it 50/50 Ron ducking and diving v HMRC **** up.

I think we as a club are in no position to comment on underpaid and understaffed

 

[Blue Yonder]

I think we as a club are in no position to comment on underpaid and understaffed

I’m not we as a club Carl so I can comment. I’m just an ordinary bloke trying to make sense of what’s going on who has had experience as a businessman dealing with HMRC. They are not beyond the odd error.

 

[gpd]

I’m not we as a club Carl so I can comment. I’m just an ordinary bloke trying to make sense of what’s going on who has had experience as a businessman dealing with HMRC. They are not beyond the odd error.

You might be amazed as to how many errors they can make. But at times (in my capacity as a debt advisor for vulnerable people) I have also found them to be almost human and...compassionate....at times. But not always. I'm sure at other times they can be animals. I also remember that Ron had a HMRC court case against him thrown out not that long ago. HMRC are not infallible.

 

[Kat_r]

The thread can be summed up as a rich man is treating everybody like rubbish on the way to getting richer.

The club will be fine as there’s no way rm would let it fold now.

It’s happened so many times before drama with hmrc

It’s awful to see so many people in distress but there’s no way the club will be struck off. It can’t be healthy to worry so much over it.

The only thing that’s changed as far as I can see is Ron seems more unwilling now to spend his own money on the club so drama levels go up with loans etc worries over that.

 

[Kenny]

Our plight is featured on the Guardian Football Weekly podcast that just dropped last night.

Southend chat is around 45 minutes in with James Schooley from Save Our Southend.

Manchester City investigated, an EFL round-up and Southend United – Football Weekly

Max Rushden, Barry Glendenning, George Elek and Ben Fisher round up the latest stories in the Football League. Plus Kieran Maguire and James Schooley join to discuss the latest at Manchester City and Southend

www.theguardian.com

 

[Medway Blue]

Our plight is featured on the Guardian Football Weekly podcast that just dropped last night.

Southend chat is around 45 minutes in with James Schooley from Save Our Southend.

Manchester City investigated, an EFL round-up and Southend United – Football Weekly

Max Rushden, Barry Glendenning, George Elek and Ben Fisher round up the latest stories in the Football League. Plus Kieran Maguire and James Schooley join to discuss the latest at Manchester City and Southend

www.theguardian.com

That was me. Great experience. Football Weekly has a wide listenership so a great way to get word out there of what's going on here. Already had 4 non-SUFC mates message me saying they heard me on the podcast, didn't realise it was so bad and wishing us well. So hopefully it's working in that sense.

 

[dusterman]

That was me. Great experience. Football Weekly has a wide listenership so a great way to get word out there of what's going on here. Already had 4 non-SUFC mates message me saying they heard me on the podcast, didn't realise it was so bad and wishing us well. So hopefully it's working in that sense.

Thought you came across really well. Stayed remarkably calm when talking about RM. Not sure I could have done the same to be honest.

 

[Medway Blue]

Thought you came across really well. Stayed remarkably calm when talking about RM. Not sure I could have done the same to be honest.

Believe me, I've turned the air blue when talking about him privately. Thought it was better to be more measured for something like this.

When they told us it had been uploaded and published, they said it was after several back-and-forths with their lawyers. I noticed they cut out a bit where I suggested he was cash poor and asset wealthy (ish), that the money he'd put into the club perhaps wasn't his own personal wealth but probably loans secured against some of his land and developments, and that perhaps the abilty/room for manoeuvre to loan against his assets had dried up.

I guess they thought that bit was potentially litigious which is fair enough. But staying calm meant that was the only bit they cut. They said it'd be 5 mins but spoke to me for 12 mins and published 10 mins, so I'm taking that as a win!

 

[dusterman]

Believe me, I've turned the air blue when talking about him privately. Thought it was better to be more measured for something like this. When they told us it had been uploaded and published, they said it was after several back-and-forths with their lawyers. I noticed they cut out a bit where I suggested he was cash poor and asset wealthy (ish), that the money he'd put into the club perhaps wasn't his own personal wealth but probably loans secured against some of his land and developments, and that perhaps the abilty/room for manoeuvre to loan against his assets had dried up. I guess they thought that bit was potentially litigious which is fair enough. But staying calm meant that was the only bit they cut. They said it'd be 5 mins but spoke to me for 12 mins and published 10 mins, so I'm taking that as a win!

Yeah, I think your measured approach meant they kept it going for longer.

Shame they cut that bit as it’s more than likely true, but understandable from their point of view.

It really is great the coverage we are getting after some hard graft from many Shrimpers. Really appreciate everyone’s hard work.

I have to say I’m hugely exasperated that Matt Slater did not talk about us on the Overlap, feels almost unforgivable the opportunity missed there.

 

[CC51DAS]

Believe me, I've turned the air blue when talking about him privately. Thought it was better to be more measured for something like this.

When they told us it had been uploaded and published, they said it was after several back-and-forths with their lawyers. I noticed they cut out a bit where I suggested he was cash poor and asset wealthy (ish), that the money he'd put into the club perhaps wasn't his own personal wealth but probably loans secured against some of his land and developments, and that perhaps the abilty/room for manoeuvre to loan against his assets had dried up.

I guess they thought that bit was potentially litigious which is fair enough. But staying calm meant that was the only bit they cut. They said it'd be 5 mins but spoke to me for 12 mins and published 10 mins, so I'm taking that as a win!

A win in extra time, I'd say - great stuff James