Phillips is a shrimper

[philtalkin]

The amount owed was exaggerated 1000%, there was no agreement from the club at all to pay anything to the charity as that was Spinners choice, the parties had been in dialogue over the unpaid money and said it would be paid soon and the rest was unnecessary gossip and speculation.

Too sensible for most people on here, so will only appeal to those of us who are more 'blinkered'.

I Have corrected the exaggerated % increase. (Unless some Maths genius comes on and says otherwise).

 

[Ron Manager]

I am just puzzled as to why this has to be so black and white in some people's eyes and why it appears you have to be on one side or the other.

Personally I'm not rabidly anti-Ron Martin/Geoff King etc. However I'm equally not passionately supportive of them either.

I do however have a healthy (or so I believe) wariness and cynicism of people in authority and power. I believe a free press that's willing and able to ask questions of those people in power is vital. Therefore whilst I may have some issues with aspects of what the Echo publishes I defend wholeheartedly their right to do so.

I suppose I really hoped we'd left behind feuds between the club and the Echo and believed that was a mere relic of the bad old Jobson days.

 

[blue shrimp]

The football club according to recent accounts paid SEL 1 million pounds is this not conflict of interest?Would it of not been more prudent to pay off the inland revenue?

 

[fbm]

Too sensible for most people on here, so will only appeal to those of us who are more 'blinkered'.

I Have corrected the exaggerated % increase. (Unless some Maths genius comes on and says otherwise).

Thanks - not the only occurrence of erroneous zero's recently. Incidentally, if the Echo made the same mistake I did (that I have now corrected in the original post) we would have only owed Spinner £400.

DOH!

 

[fbm]

I am just puzzled as to why this has to be so black and white in some people's eyes and why it appears you have to be on one side or the other.

Personally I'm not rabidly anti-Ron Martin/Geoff King etc. However I'm equally not passionately supportive of them either.

I do however have a healthy (or so I believe) wariness and cynicism of people in authority and power. I believe a free press that's willing and able to ask questions of those people in power is vital. Therefore whilst I may have some issues with aspects of what the Echo publishes I defend wholeheartedly their right to do so.

I suppose I really hoped we'd left behind feuds between the club and the Echo and believed that was a mere relic of the bad old Jobson days.

Where there's evidence of fraud or wrongdoing I'd agree. For instance, if the accounts showed we were profitable, the economy was booming, and there were STILL no players coming in then the Echo would be right to question.

But it isn't like that and I still don't know what Chris wanted to achieve.

Lets say the club DOES have a financial crisis.

And... what?

Who does that help? None of us are in a position to do anything about it. Ron isn't going to let himself sink if he can help it, is he? It's not like he's running this as a little sideline... his whole bloody life and conmpany probably depends on it!

 

[fbm]

The football club according to recent accounts paid SEL 1 million pounds is this not conflict of interest?Would it of not been more prudent to pay off the inland revenue?

No it's not a conflict of interest. Ron was hoping to use the new rules for payment of tax debts over a period of time that unfortunately we can't avail ourselves of as the winding up order was issued on the day the rules came into force I think (or something like that).

As the HMRC interest rate on outstanding tax I believe is lower than what is commercially available (it's actually 0% for Inheritance tax at the moment I understand) then it makes more prudent sense to keep the Revenue waiting as long as possible before paying them off.

 

[EastStandBlue]

The football club according to recent accounts paid SEL 1 million pounds is this not conflict of interest?Would it of not been more prudent to pay off the inland revenue?

Probably because the accounts you're looking at would be from last year...

 

[Andy_S]

It seems to me that Mr Phillips just likes talking about himself an awful lot.

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

Echo misprint of the day...

West United United

...in the Scotty Forbes article!

 

[Jai]

Echo misprint of the day...



...in the Scotty Forbes article!

Jeez this is getting so so dull now.

 

[class]

Ron was hoping to use the new rules for payment of tax debts over a period of time that unfortunately we can't avail ourselves of as the winding up order was issued on the day the rules came into force I think (or something like that).

But isn't that only applicable to Corporation Tax, of which we have no liability (because we will have huge losses b/fwd and c/fwd) The tax we owe to HMRC is for Tax, NI and possibly VAT, and as such isn't available for 'payment plans'.

 

[Thorpe Groyney]

I am just puzzled as to why this has to be so black and white in some people's eyes and why it appears you have to be on one side or the other.

There will be more from Shimperzone's Liberal Democrat spokesman after the break.

By the way, I am pro Wiggy. You go girl.

 

[philtalkin]

But isn't that only applicable to Corporation Tax, of which we have no liability (because we will have huge losses b/fwd and c/fwd) The tax we owe to HMRC is for Tax, NI and possibly VAT, and as such isn't available for 'payment plans'.

That is what the whole argument was about. This is what the club said at the time:

At its Annual General Meeting in June this year, the Football League passed a resolution that has since been accepted by HMRC giving football clubs time to pay their indebtedness - a particularly prevalent situation within the industry. Southend United had been in discussion with HMRC for some time with a view to concluding a time to pay agreement in accordance with the newly adopted Football League rules.

The new rules were passed on the June 12th. On that very day the HMRC issued a petition against the Club.

 

[Hooly]

The tax we owe to HMRC is for Tax, NI and possibly VAT, and as such isn't available for 'payment plans'.

Yes it is. SME's are allowed to defer payment of any of those taxes under special provisions made by the government last year called the Business Payment Support Service, without penalty but generously accruing interest to HMRC.

An SME is classed as a company with fewer than 500 employees, and either annual turnover not exceeding €100M or a balance sheet totalling €86M, and which is not part of a larger enterprise that would fail these tests.

However you can't defer your payment once they've started chasing you because you're late, so SUFC would be excluded from those provisions now. HMRC will generally always cut a deal as, let's say SUFC goes down, their chances of even 50p in the £ would be remote despite them being a preferential creditor.

Don't forget IIRC that HMRC were the main reason that Leeds were docked do many points. They objected to Bates's recovery plan because it was worse than that being offered by other potential investors. But because Bates had lets say "influence" over the major part of the creditors no other deal was acceptable to them. But HMRC did get it called back to court so he had to up the ante & that delay cost them the extra points.

 

[blue shrimp]

Where there's evidence of fraud or wrongdoing I'd agree. For instance, if the accounts showed we were profitable, the economy was booming, and there were STILL no players coming in then the Echo would be right to question.

But it isn't like that and I still don't know what Chris wanted to achieve.

Lets say the club DOES have a financial crisis.

And... what?

Who does that help? None of us are in a position to do anything about it. Ron isn't going to let himself sink if he can help it, is he? It's not like he's running this as a little sideline... his whole bloody life and conmpany probably depends on it!

Whatever befalls SUFC rest assured RM will be well catered for,Do you really think RM would risk his families future over SUFC?

 

[philtalkin]

Jeez this is getting so so dull now.

I agree, the Scott Forbes article in the Echo, is right up there with the best! An ex footballer, who played about 47 pro games has, wait for it... gone into coaching!

I remember reading a similar article in the 70's. 'Ex pro buys The Dog and Duck'.

Journalism at its best.

 

[Jai]

I agree, the Scott Forbes article in the Echo, is right up there with the best! An ex footballer, who played about 47 pro games has, wait for it... gone into coaching!

I remember reading a similar article in the 70's. 'Ex pro buys The Dog and Duck'.

Journalism at its best.

It's a little more than that, to be fair, he's set up his own football club. And Scott Forbes was an interesting character and at the time one of my favourite players, so I quite enjoyed the article actually.

Perhaps you'd prefer a return to the old days when they had a designated west ham reporter? At least spammers coverage has gone down recently.

 

[fbm]

Whatever befalls SUFC rest assured RM will be well catered for,Do you really think RM would risk his families future over SUFC?

My point exactly.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Whatever befalls SUFC rest assured RM will be well catered for,Do you really think RM would risk his families future over SUFC?

By well catered for, are you referring to the catering at Her Majesty's Pleasure which he'd run the risk of experiencing?

ps How many families does he have?

I agree, the Scott Forbes article in the Echo, is right up there with the best! An ex footballer, who played about 47 pro games has, wait for it... gone into coaching!

I remember reading a similar article in the 70's. 'Ex pro buys The Dog and Duck'.

Journalism at its best.

I thought that was a good story. I was interested to learn what Scott Forbes was up to now.

 

[Napster]

I thought that was a good story. I was interested to learn what Scott Forbes was up to now.

I like the way he singled out Gandhi as a big earner.