[Football] Premier League club has striking off order from Registrar of Companies. Who could it be?

[Triggaaar]

You can also be struck off by Companies House for not filing your Annual Confirmation Statement which is entirely separate and nothing to do with the accounts.

Are you saying that 'unless cause is shown to the contrary' means something other than what Westdene Seagull said?

 

[Pavilionaire]

Are you saying that 'unless cause is shown to the contrary' means something other than what Westdene Seagull said?

Companies House usually start strike off proceedings for 2 mainreasons:

1. Late accounts.
2. Late Annual Confirmation Statement.

Once either documents are filed that normally halts the strike-off as far as they are concerned. There's no explaining to do.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Right, so if they haven't filed the accounts by a given date, they will be struck off, unless, er, they have filed the accounts. That's pretty ****ing dumb writing.

Yes it's basically a warning that if accounts aren't filed by that date then the registrar can strike the company off. However, as mentioned, it's also possible for HMRC (or another creditor) to oppose the striking off.

Presumably Palace owe plenty of money to a variety of companies (and HMRC) so the company isn't going to be struck off.

It's more interesting that the situation has arisen in the first place and what they don't want people to see/can't agree with the auditors. As I said earlier on the thread, my money would be on it being FFP related.

 

[Triggaaar]

It's more interesting that the situation has arisen in the first place and what they don't want people to see/can't agree with the auditors. As I said earlier on the thread, my money would be on it being FFP related.

I know they've wasted plenty on the likes of Benteke, but surely they haven't spent enough to break FFP have they?

 

[Pavilionaire]

Yes it's basically a warning that if accounts aren't filed by that date then the registrar can strike the company off. However, as mentioned, it's also possible for HMRC (or another creditor) to oppose the striking off.

Presumably Palace owe plenty of money to a variety of companies (and HMRC) so the company isn't going to be struck off.

It's more interesting that the situation has arisen in the first place and what they don't want people to see/can't agree with the auditors. As I said earlier on the thread, my money would be on it being FFP related.

Net transfer spend that season of £38.5 mill. Is that really going to kill them on FFP?

 

[Stat Brother]

I know they've wasted plenty on the likes of Benteke, but surely they haven't spent enough to break FFP have they?

I'd love it to be an issue surrounding the American investment.
Sadly I'm more convinced right now is going to be the most fun we can have with the story.

 

[LlcoolJ]

I know they've wasted plenty on the likes of Benteke, but surely they haven't spent enough to break FFP have they?

I'm no expert but part of FFP is how much you pay in wages...

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/premier-league-update-their-ffp-rules

Wouldn't surprise me at all if they'd breached this bit, especially with paying off managers etc.

 

[Triggaaar]

I'm no expert but part of FFP is how much you pay in wages...

Of course, but it's not like they've spent like Chelsea and Man City etc.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if they'd breached this bit, especially with paying off managers etc.

They won a court case against Pulis didn't they? There are so many teams I can't believe haven't broken FFP - like Middlesbrough, Wolves etc, but I can't believe Palace have.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Of course, but it's not like they've spent like Chelsea and Man City etc.

They won a court case against Pulis didn't they? There are so many teams I can't believe haven't broken FFP - like Middlesbrough, Wolves etc, but I can't believe Palace have.

It's based on the increase in wages from the previous year (in simple terms). Have a read of that link.

Comparison to Chelsea or City is irrelevant, it's comparison to what they spent previously that counts.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I know they've wasted plenty on the likes of Benteke, but surely they haven't spent enough to break FFP have they?

I'd imagine, given how awash with cash the Premier League is, it's not easy to break the FFP rules, although I will admit to not knowing exactly what they are (unlike those in the Championship, which I DO know)

 

[LlcoolJ]

I'd imagine, given how awash with cash the Premier League is, it's not easy to break the FFP rules, although I will admit to not knowing exactly what they are (unlike those in the Championship, which I DO know)

It's very easy of you increase your wage bill by too much in one season. See the link above....

 

[Exile]

It's based on the increase in wages from the previous year (in simple terms). Have a read of that link.

Comparison to Chelsea or City is irrelevant, it's comparison to what they spent previously that counts.

Based on previous wage spend AND on levels of commercial income (another reason why comparison to Chelsea and City is worthless).

 

[Triggaaar]

It's based on the increase in wages from the previous year (in simple terms). Have a read of that link.

Oh crickey, I had no idea those were the rules now

Comparison to Chelsea or City is irrelevant, it's comparison to what they spent previously that counts.

Understood. Is this some special deal to stop wealthy club owners challenging the agreed top 6?

 

[Mellotron]

Tony Bloom has, indeed, invested hundreds of millions (not billions) into the club. He has helped the club build a fantastic new stadium and an incredible, state of the art Category One academy (I realise that a Palace fan won't know much about Category One academies, but google is your friend). We are very fortunate to have as our owner and chairman a dyed-in-the-wool true fan who, from the outset, was determined to give the club a sustainable long-term future by making significant investments in the club's infrastructure.

Just out of interest, what have the gimps who run Palace got to show for years (and hundreds of millions of pounds) of Premier League income?

Man, when you really zoom out and look at it, we are LIGHTYEARS ahead of them as a club.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Oh crickey, I had no idea those were the rules now

Understood. Is this some special deal to stop wealthy club owners challenging the agreed top 6?

It's supposed to ensure the sustainability of clubs and stop them spending all the new TV money on wages.

That's why I think the Palace accounts fiasco is to do with this.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

It's very easy of you increase your wage bill by too much in one season. See the link above....

Thanks.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Based on previous wage spend AND on levels of commercial income (another reason why comparison to Chelsea and City is worthless).

Yes that's right, and why City can flout it anyway by getting yet another Etihad style "sponsorship" deal.

 

[KZNSeagull]

It's supposed to ensure the sustainability of clubs and stop them spending all the new TV money on wages.

That's why I think the Palace accounts fiasco is to do with this.

I agree. I seem to remember that their wage bill in their last set of published accounts was very near the mark in terms of %age of tv money. I may be wrong though.

 

[Triggaaar]

Yes that's right, and why City can flout it anyway by getting yet another Etihad style "sponsorship" deal.

Are UEFA, FA etc just allowing teams to submit any figure for their sponsorship deals (ie, company linked to owners pay well over the odds for a sponsorship deal)?

If so that's just dumb, and means the whole thing is pointless.

 

[Triggaaar]

I agree. I seem to remember that their wage bill in their last set of published accounts was very near the mark in terms of %age of tv money. I may be wrong though.

Reading the link coolJ posted, it's not about the percentage of tv money, but the total and the increase compared to last year.