Pompey update

[desprateseagull]

how can this club be allowed to continue in ANY league, when insolvent??

it must really bitch to be a creditor of these clubs, seeing them continue trading, and making shed loads of money (though slightly less, now in the chumps league..), and leaving you in the lurch.

why do footty clubs get special treatment?

like any other firm, if they cant pay their bills- close them down.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I love the way clubs were voting on the Leeds 15 point issue and clubs were rallying to have us kicked out of the league, but every club is seemingly ambivalent when it comes to Portsmouth. When are teams actually going to get punished for crass overspending and riding roughshod over creditors for their own benefit.

Yeah, 20p. Whoopee do. At least Scudamore has assured their survival with £48m parachute payments to come.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Never been keen on Pompey to be honest but gotta admit that Edna's very effective anti-Pompey propaganda has got me disliking them even more

I'm not a fan of theirs, granted, but it's this whole rule about football creditors being paid in full that makes me mad, whether that's Pompey or any other club. Why on earth should players get every penny when other employees- the club shop workers, the tea ladies, the lottery sellers get made to wait? It's not like players don't earn enough anyway, and the rule (that only applies in football as well, no other industry cossets it's employees in this way) is just a joke. It encourages teams to spend beyond their means.

 

[The Modfather]

I do not understand why 'football debt' has to be repaid first. Resulting in ex-players, managers, football clubs owed transfers fees, get paid before HMRC.

Surely this does not happen in any other sector? I thought secured creditors are repaid first, then crown debt.

But in football, it seems that HMRC, crown debt ranks behind football related debt.

Surely this is a lophole that the Treasury should be closing immediately.

 

[Billy Mays]

Wankers! I'm sorry but really. Wankers.

 

[Whitterz]

Tossers of the highrst order

 

[Billy Mays]

Changing the subject slightly while still staying with a kind of mastubatory theme I notice in my local supermarket this evening that they stock "Shrimp Tossers" which I thought was rather marvellous. If I wasn't so technologically retarded I'd try to find a way of posting a picture of them here.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

This only serves to further demonstrate how badly football is run in this country. The authorities really are an absolute disgrace.

 

[beorhthelm]

I do not understand why 'football debt' has to be repaid first.
...
Surely this is a lophole that the Treasury should be closing immediately.

its not a loophole, its the rules of the FA for participation in their leagues, with the PFA wholeheartedly supporting the players protection. its obviously in place to prevent a club buying a player, finding they are gash and deciding not to pay the fee, or not paying a player then keeping their registration. other industries can and probably do have similar restrictions, but they aren't high profile. Football is unusuall in being a fairly small (relatively) number of organisations and only one trade body which is defacto compulsory to join. in most other industry you don't have these issues.

what im getting at its far more complex than closing a loophole. the tax office has no power or business telling football how to run its leagues and therefore cannot intervene. it goes another level up, if government does interfere, the nation might breach FIFA rules on non-government involement (setup to prevent problems in some nations).

i dont like it either, but here we are. unless the FA changes its rules nothing will change and why would they, the member clubs, remove a rule that protects them?

 

[Gwylan]

its not a loophole, its the rules of the FA for participation in their leagues, with the PFA wholeheartedly supporting the players protection. its obviously in place to prevent a club buying a player, finding they are gash and deciding not to pay the fee, or not paying a player then keeping their registration. other industries can and probably do have similar restrictions, but they aren't high profile. Football is unusuall in being a fairly small (relatively) number of organisations and only one trade body which is defacto compulsory to join. in most other industry you don't have these issues.

what im getting at its far more complex than closing a loophole. the tax office has no power or business telling football how to run its leagues and therefore cannot intervene. it goes another level up, if government does interfere, the nation might breach FIFA rules on non-government involement (setup to prevent problems in some nations).

i dont like it either, but here we are. unless the FA changes its rules nothing will change and why would they, the member clubs, remove a rule that protects them?

The government could make HMRC a preferential creditor (as it used to be until a few years ago) so Portsmouth would have to pay all its tax debts before any football creditors - that would shake things up a bit.

I can't remember when it changed, or why. It seems like a strange thing for a government to deny itself money.

 

[bhaexpress]

The bigger issue is that the likes of Leeds, Portsmouth and Palace make life a lot more difficult for those teams that try to stay in budget. Few organisations will be prepared to loan or invest in a football club when it's clear that they can get so severely ripped off. There's seemingly not much incentive for clubs to balance their books given the 'get out of jail' situation that Administration gives them.

Oh yes, I'm sure Pompey and Palace will be good bets for relegation next season but that's not going to help their creditors is it ?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Where the Money Went

By Nick Harris

16 May 2010

The financial rewards simply for being a member of the Premier League are highlighted today with the release of official figures showing payments from central League funds to each club for the season just finished. The bottom team, Portsmouth, picked up £31.8m from the League in TV cash and prize money while the best-paid team, Manchester United, earned £52.996m.

United made slightly more than title-winning Chelsea (£52.8m) from central funds because United were shown live on TV in Britain twice more than Chelsea, meaning United's "facility fees" payments for being on live TV were higher.

The figures for all clubs are carried in the table below. Every club got £14.6m as an equal share of domestic TV income, plus £10.1m as an equal share of foreign TV income. Facility fees varied depending how many times each club featured in live TV matches, between a minimum of 10 times and a maximum of 24.

"Merit payments" are rewarded according to where each team finished in the League. Portsmouth's 20th-place finish earned a merit payment of £800,424, Hull's 19th place earned them twice that sum, Burnley's 18th place earned them three times £800,424, and so on to the top, where Chelsea's merit cash was £16,008,480.

The enormous guaranteed sums on offer for membership of the League show why there really should be no need for a well-run club to be facing financial hardship. Central funds are the largest single source of income for most clubs but all clubs also earn millions from ticket sales, sponsorship deals, merchandising and other commercial income, as well as more TV money from matches in the FA Cup, League Cup and / or European competitions.

From next season, when the income streams from the recently negotiated (and improved) 2010-13 TV deals kicks in, the central funds income will climb again, by up to a third. In other words, being the worst team in the Premier League next season, and finishing bottom, will be worth around £40m from central funds alone.

Quite how the clubs choose to spend this income is another matter. The biggest single expense for most clubs in most seasons is the players' wage bill, and the history of the Premier League has shown wage inflation rising pretty much in line with central funds income.

Clubs are not obliged to spend on wages, of course. Some had been models of prudence, with West Bromwich Albion a recent example the last time they were in the top flight. They spend what they could afford on wages, and went down. But at least they went down in reasonable financial shape and are about to come back up again. That is the juggling act facing all chairmen and chief executives. Do you spend within your means and perhaps struggle (like Burnley in 2009-10) but go down in good shape financially? Or spend within your means and stay up (like Wolves) and then decide whether to stick or twist with the prudence route in the next campaign? Or spend more on wages that you can probably afford in the hope you can stay up or finish higher than before, but pay a hefty price if you fail? (See Leeds and others).

Also shown in the table below are "parachute" payments made to those clubs relegated in the two previous seasons: £12.4m to each of them in 2009-10. Six clubs went down in the last two seasons but only five got parachute money because Birmingham have already returned to the Premier League, so forfeit their parachute cash, which goes instead to the Football League. Parachute payments will surge in value and be extended in length from next season, to £16m per year for the first two years, plus £8m per year for two years after that.

 

[bhafc99]

Haven't Pompey fiddled the figures to inflate the level of debt and therefore reduce the percentage owed to HMRC thereby reducing HMRC's share of the vote?

Sure I read something like that somewhere. No idea how they'd achieve that though.

Things like this help.

Find a company you once dealt with, but that's now gone bust - that way there's no-one left to query what you say. Claim you owe them, say, £2m. Add £2m to your overall debt, making it £138m. Sorted.

Try and hide the truth that it was actually THEM that owed YOU £2m. Because that would actually take £2m OFF your debt. Making it £134m.

Few more sleights of hand like that can easily inflate a debt.

Good news for Portsmouth … Guardian finds missing £4m | Football | The Guardian

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

The government could make HMRC a preferential creditor (as it used to be until a few years ago) so Portsmouth would have to pay all its tax debts before any football creditors - that would shake things up a bit.

I can't remember when it changed, or why. It seems like a strange thing for a government to deny itself money.

Or make non-payment of NI/PAYE/VAT etc a personal criminal offence for the directors and responsible company executives in all companies. These monies are collected by the company on behalf of HMRC but they never, ever belong to it.

 

[BensGrandad]

Or make non-payment of NI/PAYE/VAT etc a personal criminal offence for the directors and responsible company executives in all companies. These monies are collected by the company on behalf of HMRC but they never, ever belong to it.

Surely a director collecting cash on behalf of HMRC is similar to a post master of a small sub post office collecting money on behalf of the post office. If they do an audit and the money is not available it is regarded as theft as they are only collectors of Road Tax, Passport fees etc.

Perhaps a lawyer for CPP should investigate this aspect of the dealings if prompted by HMRC.

 

[BIG GAY AL]

I just saw this on BBC sport. I don't completely understand, are they offering to pay 20% of their debts or give them 20% of their income to pay their debts?

if its the prior that is terrible, i'd rather see the Pompey go bust and the tax payer to lose their money over take that terrible offer.

 

[Gwylan]

Surely a director collecting cash on behalf of HMRC is similar to a post master of a small sub post office collecting money on behalf of the post office. If they do an audit and the money is not available it is regarded as theft as they are only collectors of Road Tax, Passport fees etc.

Perhaps a lawyer for CPP should investigate this aspect of the dealings if prompted by HMRC.

As I've mentioned before, I worked for a company that didn't pay any PAYE or NI on any of its employees for years (I was only there for three years but some were employees for much longer). We were all called into the tax office and had to sign affidavits that we'd not paid any tax and had had it deducted - fortunately I still had my P60s.

But that's all that happened - the tax office took no action against the owners of the company and a few years later he was still at it as I received a call from employees who were in the same position.

So, the chances of HMRC taking any legal action on Portsmouth directors is between nil and slim - companies can just treat PAYE as extra income without facing any criminal sanctions. An option that's not available to private individuals.

 

[Stoo82]

According to the BBC, Pompey have offered their creditors 20p in the pound today. Big of them, don't you think? They're hoping this will be accepted by enough of the people they owe, that it will allow them to put the CVA in place and exit administration.

Those creditors of course include you and I, as UK taxpayers. I think we should be included in the vote as to whether we're prepared to accept this less-than-generous offer from the tax-dodging crooks along the coast.

I say no. No on behalf of us as law abiding taxpayers, no on behalf of HMRC, and no on behalf of every other business and charity robbed by the PFC over the past few years.

But as usual, the little people will be stamped all over and forced to accept Pompey's crappy offer, and once again, another cheating club gets away with it scot-free

1. Don't we elect people to make that decsion for us?

2. If, for example, Pompy did go out of business would we not get anything to the pound they owe us? Hence the reason it might be better to get 20p rather than nothing!

BUT.

As a football fan, they should close that shitty little club down.

 

[beorhthelm]

The government could make HMRC a preferential creditor (as it used to be until a few years ago) so Portsmouth would have to pay all its tax debts before any football creditors - that would shake things up a bit.

I can't remember when it changed, or why. It seems like a strange thing for a government to deny itself money.

you might be missing the point. even if they change the law (back to how it was, which made no difference) the FA rules will still stand. the clubs are then have to choose between paying football creditors first or face expulsion/punishments, or pay the revenue which they can delay and drag out through courts. which option would you take?

 

[Gwylan]

you might be missing the point. even if they change the law (back to how it was, which made no difference) the FA rules will still stand. the clubs are then have to choose between paying football creditors first or face expulsion/punishments, or pay the revenue which they can delay and drag out through courts. which option would you take?

I know that it's too late to change the law for Portsmouth but it would stop other clubs doing it. If to survive they had to pay HMRC in full and then, to play in the League, they had to pay football creditors, clubs would take greater care not to run up massive debts.