Seems we are/were not alone

[Cockle43]

Interesting little article in the Sunday Telegraph Business Section today.

According to HMRC, in April 2010 they were owed a total of £21.7 million by football clubs, £14.3 million by Premier League clubs alone. It also goes on to say that they are now being far more robust in chasing the debts as they regard that some clubs are deliberately trying to permanently avoid paying but they will make allowances for clubs in genuine difficulty.

Interesting to see that we are far from being alone but I would love to know whether they regard us as one of those trying to permanently avoid paying or not in genuine financial difficulty......

 

[E for B and Billy Best]

I think we fall in to both catergories.

 

[Firestorm]

I would imagine that the "permanently avoid" category would be those the HMRC consider close to administration and would be likely to pay a small amount were there to be adminisstration and the subsequent CVA.
Its these Clubs (ie Leeds) which have hardened the HMRC stance and brought about the prompt actions we are seeing these days.

I reckon that the word permanently has been misued and that they actually mean consistently, and that will include us

 

[Napster]

Its these Clubs (ie Leeds) which have hardened the HMRC stance

don't be so coy and just say it's Peter Ridsdale

 

[Firestorm]

don't be so coy and just say it's Peter Ridsdale

Bates had the final say when it came to the CVA though

 

[chadded]

Interesting to see that we are far from being alone but I would love to know whether they regard us as one of those trying to permanently avoid paying or not in genuine financial difficulty......

I'd say we fall into the former because we are the latter.

 

[bazzashrimper]

Looking at the Accounts to 2009 - the amount owed to the tax man increased from £800k to £1.8m - in that year. Maybe they would have been happy giving us an £800k float, but we chose to take the P and they clamped down - rightly so too.

 

[Firestorm]

Looking at the Accounts to 2009 - the amount owed to the tax man increased from £800k to £1.8m - in that year. Maybe they would have been happy giving us an £800k float, but we chose to take the P and they clamped down - rightly so too.

That would have been the amount outstanding at 31/7/2009, certainly looks like we were racking up the debt , rather than paying it off. The cash flow problems in the 20 months since the accounts which meant regular late payments certainly kept HMRC on our backs.

 

[bazzashrimper]

That would have been the amount outstanding at 31/7/2009, certainly looks like we were racking up the debt , rather than paying it off. The cash flow problems in the 20 months since the accounts which meant regular late payments certainly kept HMRC on our backs.

Yep - I agree, in that year the Bank loans / OD's also increased massively - but for some reason the debt to the parent company reduced by £500k. Any idea FS whether this is the ground rent which is never charged for?

 

[Firestorm]

Yep - I agree, in that year the Bank loans / OD's also increased massively - but for some reason the debt to the parent company reduced by £500k. Any idea FS whether this is the ground rent which is never charged for?

I don't think so as the notes to the accounts do say that it was not charged

Related party transactions: South eastern Leisure
....The company leases the training ground from SEL and RH from SEL Co (see my previous post in aother thread about property and seperate companies) rent is charged amounting to Nil (2008 Nil) .

At the time the accounts were first published I speculated that MD were having cash issues and SUFC borrowed some money from a third party in order to repay a bit of the money that they owed to MD .

This could well be construed as RM taking money out of the club, as I would imagine it was used to prop up MD and could well have been used for Salaries....but that is really speculation and anyway its just a case of SUFC paying their debts, something a number on here have been saying we should be doing, regardless of who its owed to.

I really hope that this repayment of parent company debt did not occur to any great degree in 09/10 as it would insinuate that paying MD/SEL/RHL was perferential to paying HMRC /Tilly/The players.

Mind you the accounts would not shed too much light on that as the HMRC/Players non payment occured in the 2nd HY of the accounts and should there be any repayment that may well of occured in the early part of the year before the cash flow problems manifested themselves, the actual timings are not reported in the accounts. (although it would point to poor budgeting)

 

[Wise Head]

I don't think so as the notes to the accounts do say that it was not charged

Related party transactions: South eastern Leisure
....The company leases the training ground from SEL and RH from SEL Co (see my previous post in aother thread about property and seperate companies) rent is charged amounting to Nil (2008 Nil) .

At the time the accounts were first published I speculated that MD were having cash issues and SUFC borrowed some money from a third party in order to repay a bit of the money that they owed to MD .

This could well be construed as RM taking money out of the club, as I would imagine it was used to prop up MD and could well have been used for Salaries....but that is really speculation and anyway its just a case of SUFC paying their debts, something a number on here have been saying we should be doing, regardless of who its owed to.

I really hope that this repayment of parent company debt did not occur to any great degree in 09/10 as it would insinuate that paying MD/SEL/RHL was perferential to paying HMRC /Tilly/The players.

Mind you the accounts would not shed too much light on that as the HMRC/Players non payment occured in the 2nd HY of the accounts and should there be any repayment that may well of occured in the early part of the year before the cash flow problems manifested themselves, the actual timings are not reported in the accounts. (although it would point to poor budgeting)

Basically we haven't got a clue what went on or is currently going on. If I owned shares in SUFC, which I don't, I wouldn't be too happy with the transparency of any of this. It seems RM can take money in & out of the club at his own discretion.

 

[Cricko]

Basically we haven't got a clue what went on or is currently going on. If I owned shares in SUFC, which I don't, I wouldn't be too happy with the transparency of any of this. It seems RM can take money in & out of the club at his own discretion.

IMO he always has done....why set up a company to charge rent on the ground knowing full well you were not going to get it...no doubt it looked good on paper...who is our parent company at the moment and if (as it looks) we are helping MD out with cash when we can hardly stay afloat ourselves,why is there not more transparency between all these companies if there is nothing to hide.

At least the shareholders deserve to know the full facts but will no doubt be told once more that we are all to thick to understand the complexity of it all.

The trouble is he owns the majority of the shares and does what he likes , hence the fact so many directors have left the board.

 

[Wise Head]

IMO he always has done....why set up a company to charge rent on the ground knowing full well you were not going to get it...no doubt it looked good on paper...who is our parent company at the moment and if (as it looks) we are helping MD out with cash when we can hardly stay afloat ourselves,why is there not more transparency between all these companies if there is nothing to hide.

At least the shareholders deserve to know the full facts but will no doubt be told once more that we are all to thick to understand the complexity of it all.

The trouble is he owns the majority of the shares and does what he likes , hence the fact so many directors have left the board.

Totally agree. I remember getting the share prospectus through a few years ago and was quite excited as the previous two years showed a small profit and we were moving to a new stadium. I thought the share issue was to pay for part of the new ground. I lost interest very quickly when it didn't state anywhere that the club would own the new ground (which we have now had confirmed they won't). In the brochure there was no mention that I can recall that there would be significant money transfers between the company and his own fully owned companies.
Whilst what he is doing I'm sure is legal, I wouldn't be too sure that some of the transfers of money out of SUFC to his other companies weren't to the detriment of SUFC (particularly if it meant we couldn't pay the players & staff on time or HMRC before they served us with winding up orders.