Kacper Lopata

[CRATE]

Got to say, how demoralising for the clubs back office staff seeing press releases saying payers have been paid for January, players have been paid for February. Yet most of them have not been paid in full or paid at all?

 

[BALDY]

LeedsSUFC "Stan will probably sell them the dream, 'Play for us for a year or two and you'll get that big move in to the EFL'"

But what if they read the nightmare first?

 

[KiwiRob]

No.

This isn't intended to be patronising so please don't read it so. But knowing how the operation of a limited company works is extremely important.

So, to start with the basics - firstly, a limited company means limited liability. That means that if the company goes under, the liability stops with the company and the directors and shareholders don't lose their own personal assets (unless they have given personal guarantees, which in the case of SUFC, apart from Ron I would imagine they haven't).

The company therefore has to stand or fall by it's own assets and liabilities. It MUST - by law - remain solvent in order to trade. That basically means that the assets have got to exceed the liabilities.

If the company is insolvent it ceases trading and is dissolved or wound up. Any assets are divided between the creditors at a pro rata rate. That's it. The end. But the directors generally can start again in another venture (unless disqualified from being a director, which is another subject) and have retained their personal wealth.

This is a very simplistic explanation of course.

But to be clear, there is absolutely no legal requirement for a director to stick his hand in his pocket to keep a company afloat. None whatsoever. That's the whole point of it being a company. If there was, companies wouldn't need to exist.

Now, plenty of directors do, of course. But they are not required to, no matter how much they might want the staff and players paid at our beloved football club, for instance. The liability is limited, any excess debt dies with the club. They are not generally going to risk their own assets to pay company debt.

So, with SUFC in the position it was, no-one in their right mind - from a strictly financial point of view - was going to expose any more of their own personal wealth than already exists or might exist.

I've said it on here before, running a company can be extremely difficult and if you run it with a proper moral compass, then the likelihood is that when bad times come around, the company will go under. It is very easy to pay all your debts on time when the money is available to do so but when it isn't, it might be the right thing to prop it up with your own funds so that the staff and other creditors can be paid, but if bad times continue then sooner or later the money will run out. And then what? The company has to close, you've lost everything, possibly your house, you can't support your family and you have nothing left to start any new venture.

Yes, I know there's several people on here who say they have run businesses and who have paid all their debts in full and on time and if that's the case then very well done, but there must also have been other factors, whether that's starting a business at the right time and it working, taking over an existing business and it staying successful, being so small it is very easily manageable without having to pay staff or just being lucky and never having had hard times. But not all companies have that good fortune.

The company absolutely must succeed or fail on it's own merits.

Many thanks fbm for that informative and well-reasoned response. You are, of course, absolutely right. There is no legal requirement for a Director to stick his hand in his pocket to help keep a company and its employees afloat. But it could be argued that the absence of a legal requirement does not absolve the Directors of a community organisation like Southend United of moral responsibility to assist in a financial crisis at that organisation. In fact, the absence of a legal requirement means that the Directors of the football club can assist in a way that limits their financial exposure. Several members of the current Board seem to have been in that position while the club was waiting for the loan recently negotiated by the Chairman.

 

[Realist]

Come on guys it’s one player. This thread didn’t need to be nearly 20 pages long or longer. He’s gone, he’s left. The club isn’t about one player. We move in and carry on and get on with the rest of the games in hope for a playoff place.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Come on guys it’s one player. This thread didn’t need to be nearly 20 pages long or longer. He’s gone, he’s left. The club isn’t about one player. We move in and carry on and get on with the rest of the games in hope for a playoff place.

True, but this was bound to stir up a lot of feelings for all sorts of reasons. People need to get all that off their chests and the Zone is good for that.

I think we’ve probably covered it all now and this thread will peter out all by itself in the coming day or two (unless Kacper signs for one of our playoff rivals!).

 

[Ian Benjamin]

Lopata is a very good player, the squad will be weaker without him in it. That surely is unquestionable. Can an XI cope without him, yes they can but would rather he was with us, than against us. For me, if it was all a bad dream and he came back, I would be happy to have him in the squad.

 

[The General]

Come on guys it’s one player. This thread didn’t need to be nearly 20 pages long or longer. He’s gone, he’s left. The club isn’t about one player. We move in and carry on and get on with the rest of the games in hope for a playoff place.

I don't think its necessarily just about 1 player and alot of us are looking at the bigger picture. This sort of thing will have an effect on the squad, it could go one way or the other but it just highlights that players are effected, whatever spin the management or players say in public.

 

[LeedsSUFC]

LeedsSUFC "Stan will probably sell them the dream, 'Play for us for a year or two and you'll get that big move in to the EFL'"

But what if they read the nightmare first?

The players have been paid in full most of the season for the season so far, albeit not on time once or twice..?

Following your dream is sometimes worth the risk…

 

[Realist]

True, but this was bound to stir up a lot of feelings for all sorts of reasons. People need to get all that off their chests and the Zone is good for that.

I think we’ve probably covered it all now and this thread will peter out all by itself in the coming day or two (unless Kacper signs for one of our playoff rivals!).

True, content is content I suppose. Well forum traffic is forum traffic lol. I just thought after Wednesdays scare that we could just concentrate on the up and coming games and not the politics of players who are no longer with us. :)

 

[kentblues]

Maybe the total loan was £5m and £2.6m came to SUFC with Ron needing the rest to bale out his other beleaguered companies.

I think we need to stop and think. Elounda or RHL get the £5m bridging loan. Do we really think for one minute that Ron would just hand the whole lot over to Tom? He would hand over what is needed now to clear HMRC and certain debts, and as before drip feed the rest monthly and hope that he does need to do it for too long.

 

[geoffmundo]

In my humble view, there is only one person to blame for:

- The fact that we were relegated out of League 1
- The fact that we were relegated out of League 2
- The fact that we find ourselves in Non League for the first time in over 100 years
- The fact that we cannot pay our non playing staff and playing staff on time
- The fact that we cannot pay Creditors on time
- The fact that our football club has become synonymous with shame……

 

[Maidstone Shrimper]

In my humble view, there is only one person to blame for:

- The fact that we were relegated out of League 1
- The fact that we were relegated out of League 2
- The fact that we find ourselves in Non League for the first time in over 100 years
- The fact that we cannot pay our non playing staff and playing staff on time
- The fact that we cannot pay Creditors on time
- The fact that our football club has become synonymous with shame……

And "one" ryhmes with.....?

 

[davewebbsbrain]

New text (amendments in bold)
Art. 14bis Terminating a contract with just cause for outstanding salaries
1. In the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on
their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a
deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial
obligation(s). Alternative provisions in contracts existing at the time of this provision
coming into force may be considered.

 

[Colchester John]

Just one additional Question which puts a mega light on this subject of the Pole listening into his agent again, namely WHAT DOES STANLEY COLLYMORE SAY ON THIS SUBJECT?

 

[kentblues]

The club statement on Lopata is easy to understand.

Make absolutely clear to other clubs that we feel we have a case to pursue that will go on for weeks (so don’t expect to be signing him any time soon) and if you do want him we expect substantial compensation (Elvis and his agent forgot this bit allegedly in their discussions with Orient) so don’t expect him to be cheap.

On the first point I don’t know what their case will be but they would certainly have an arguable case under FIFA article 14ibs. The assumption is that the FA might have an agreed opt out with FIFA and hence have different rules. If not there is a whole bunch of case law about what constitutes a material breach or not and it will get very messy. We don’t know.

On the second, of course I (and maybe others) forgot he is only 21. So even if out of contract compensation is still due. I can see a couple of difficulties for him here. The first is the buy out clause- effectively it will no doubt be argued that this is evidence of his valuation as agreed between Sheff and ourselves. He is also of course a Poland u21 international. Further if Sheff retain an interest by way of a significant sell on clause it can be argued that any compensation should reflecting the investment both clubs made in his development not just ours (due to Sheff’s retained interest)

So he is now in limbo as are we until it’s resolved. Meantime my advice would be to carry on paying him.

Our slippery friend may have caused the problem in the first place, but as others have found previously, he will be like a dog with a bone with this one…for better or for worse.

 

[kentblues]

New text (amendments in bold)
Art. 14bis Terminating a contract with just cause for outstanding salaries
1. In the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on
their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a
deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial
obligation(s). Alternative provisions in contracts existing at the time of this provision
coming into force may be considered.

Don’t forget about the fact that the case law on this says the beaches must be material- if we assume the 28 days was material and a few days is not where is the second monthly breach? Or these rules don’t apply for some reason. I suspect in part the case will resolve around what is material…lawyers won’t come cheap

 

[Billy Bests boot laces]

Nobody leaves employment without another job lined up and risking having no money coming in.

Off topic, but i did 7 years ago!.

 

[Holy Joe]

Don’t forget about the fact that the case law on this says the beaches must be material- if we assume the 28 days was material and a few days is not where is the second monthly breach? Or these rules don’t apply for some reason. I suspect in part the case will resolve around what is material…lawyers won’t come cheap

But hasn't it already been to tribunal and appeal - wasn't it reported the club lost the appeal yesterday - so breaches have been proven and contract is terminated

 

[rlb999]

Just one additional Question which puts a mega light on this subject of the Pole listening into his agent again, namely WHAT DOES STANLEY COLLYMORE SAY ON THIS SUBJECT?

What’s that got to do with anything?

 

[kentblues]

But hasn't it already been to tribunal and appeal - wasn't it reported the club lost the appeal yesterday - so breaches have been proven and contract is terminated

I suspect the tribunal is a league tribunal? There will be further appeal routes available possibly within the FA structure and outside. Ultimately don’t all leagues fall under FIFA and their ultimate jurisdiction? And as always the courts are the final arbiter and that is a different kettle of fish altogether. And all this takes a long time. And even if finally the contact is terminated it leaves the compensation issue.

The club may well hope given all the above another club will come in and make a substantial offer to avoid all these issues and uncertainty.

Or that Lopata will come back say until the end of the season on the basis the the club will make him available for transfer in the summer. Is Lopata the type to be pragmatic or alternatively like Elvis (the Sheff situation is not necessarily a good omen).

It’s a huge mess ultimately of Ron’s making. But that probably alters none of the above.