Football Finances

[Thespence]

Could you imagine where football would be without the FCR in place.

 

Depends whether you mean if they took it away now, or whether it never existed in the first place I suppose.

 

Either. It would be messy as hell man.

 

Would be another massive mess for the banking industry.

 

These loans we have secured against our future transfer installments would suddenly be very risky for the banks.

 

Aye.

 

When 1 club went tits up that millon are another club thought had coming there way is gone. I understand the taxmans point of view as well.

[ikri]

Breaking news: HMRC to veto Portsmouth CVA

 

HMRC source says it doesn't regard 20p in the pound as "an acceptable return to the taxpayer"

 

 

Written by David Jetuah and Rachael Singh

 

Accountancy Age, 07 Jun 2010

The taxman is set to reject Portsmouth Football Club's plans to save itself from collapse, as it regards the troubled club's offer of 20p in the pound return to creditors as too low.

 

"[Portsmouth Football Club] have offered 20p in the pound to creditors, which we don't regard as an acceptable return to the taxpayer," an HMRC source told Accountancy Age.

 

Portsmouth is hoping to hammer out a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA), giving the South Coast outfit the ability to carry on as a football club - with a creditor meeting scheduled for next week.

 

The club needs 75%, or more, of creditors to vote in favour of the CVA for it to be approved.

 

Because of the amount of money owed to the taxman, the agency holds 25% of the vote.

 

"We are determined to achieve a decent return to the taxpayer," the source added.

HMRC had previously changed the first draft of a CVA as it wanted the proposal to include a liquidation in order to investigate antecedent activities.

 

Accountancy Age revealed earlier this month that HMRC filed a writ against the Premier League regarding its controversial "football creditors rule ".

 

The FCR essentially means all football creditors, including players and managers will be paid in administrations, with the money usually deducted from payments received through TV rights.

 

http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2264288/hmrc-set-veto-cva

 

That's them fucked then.  If they start next season without a CVA in place they'll get a 15 point deduction & their 9 point deduction for going into administration might carry over too.  They'll have little more than their youth team and they'll potentially start the season on -24 points, if they don't go straight down to League One I'll be stunned.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

 

Football League clubs adopt 'home-grown' rule 

 

England's Football League clubs have agreed new rules on the number of "home-grown" players in their squads.

 

From next season, clubs will have to name 10 "home-grown" players in a squad restricted to 25 players aged over 21.

 

To qualify, players must be registered in domestic football for three seasons before turning 21.

 

However, a proposal by Leyton Orient to relegate clubs two divisions for going into administration was rejected at the League's Annual General Meeting.

 

But following the meeting of the 72 clubs in Malta, League chiefs will review the punishments for administration to see if they need toughening up.

 

Other rule changes include clubs, who will be able to include as many players under the age of 21 in their squads as they like, being hit with a transfer embargo if they do not file their financial accounts at Companies House in time.

 

The League's fit and proper persons' test has also been retitled the "Director's Test" to fall in line with the other football bodies.

 

And a loophole has been closed so that clubs that go into administration are hit with sporting sanctions even when the club is part of a group company.

 

Football League chairman Greg Clarke said: "This has been a positive and constructive meeting at which we've looked at many of the important issues currently facing football and taken steps to address a number of the most pressing governance concerns."

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8729294.stm

 

I wonder if the preferred creditor status would need to be 'voted out' to make it happen.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Portsmouth's long-term prospects look much brighter after creditors backed a deal which should see the Fratton Park outfit exit administration this summer.

 

Needing the support of those owed at least 75% of unsecured debt, Pompey's proposed Company Voluntary Agreement (CVA) received 81.3% of the vote.

 

The administrator will now press on with the plan to repay creditors at least 20p in the pound over five years.

 

Creditors of the Championship club are owed a total of £105m.

 

The only real opposition to the CVA - a requisite for clubs hoping to avoid further points penalties - came from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), which has 28 days to appeal the decision.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8746162.stm

[Guest Roger Kint]

So is that the tax payer missing out on £19.2m if the HMRC are forced to accept 20p in the £?

 

Wonder if mackems whinge over that like they did with Northern Rock(despite us not getting a penny of it)

 

 

[madras]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/8270107/Premier-League-take-tax-battle-to-High-Court.html

 

Football debts are given preferential treatment when a club comes out of administration, meaning that money owed on transfer fees and player wages is repaid in full while unsecured creditors, including the taxman, often have to settle for a fraction of what they are owed.

 

HMRC regards the rule as “unlawful, unfair and unacceptable” but, before its claim is heard, it must overcome the Premier League’s petition to strike out the case. The League’s petition will be heard next month over two days, with the provisional date set for Feb 15.

 

It could be the prelude to a legal battle this year that will have ramifications for the public purse and the football industry. “We will robustly defend our position,” said a Premier League spokesman.

 

The football creditors’ rule came under particularly scrutiny last year when HMRC was forced to accept a deal whereby it will receive just £4.8 million of Portsmouth’s £24 million debt to it, even though football clubs who were owed money are being paid back in full.

 

HMRC says it is taking the action on behalf of all unsecured creditors who often receive around 20 per cent of their debt when a football club go into administration.

 

 

it goes to court this week apparently (i was reading about it today but couldn't find a link more recent).

 

good news if true. stops it being a gamblers and speculators game........maybe ashley was ahead of the game 

[Mick]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/8270107/Premier-League-take-tax-battle-to-High-Court.html

 

Football debts are given preferential treatment when a club comes out of administration, meaning that money owed on transfer fees and player wages is repaid in full while unsecured creditors, including the taxman, often have to settle for a fraction of what they are owed.

 

HMRC regards the rule as unlawful, unfair and unacceptable but, before its claim is heard, it must overcome the Premier Leagues petition to strike out the case. The Leagues petition will be heard next month over two days, with the provisional date set for Feb 15.

 

It could be the prelude to a legal battle this year that will have ramifications for the public purse and the football industry. We will robustly defend our position, said a Premier League spokesman.

 

The football creditors rule came under particularly scrutiny last year when HMRC was forced to accept a deal whereby it will receive just £4.8 million of Portsmouths £24 million debt to it, even though football clubs who were owed money are being paid back in full.

 

HMRC says it is taking the action on behalf of all unsecured creditors who often receive around 20 per cent of their debt when a football club go into administration.

 

 

it goes to court this week apparently (i was reading about it today but couldn't find a link more recent).

 

good news if true. stops it being a gamblers and speculators game........maybe ashley was ahead of the game 

 

HMRC couldn't give a shit about the unsecured creditors, they're only interested in themselves.

[madras]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/8270107/Premier-League-take-tax-battle-to-High-Court.html

 

Football debts are given preferential treatment when a club comes out of administration, meaning that money owed on transfer fees and player wages is repaid in full while unsecured creditors, including the taxman, often have to settle for a fraction of what they are owed.

 

HMRC regards the rule as unlawful, unfair and unacceptable but, before its claim is heard, it must overcome the Premier Leagues petition to strike out the case. The Leagues petition will be heard next month over two days, with the provisional date set for Feb 15.

 

It could be the prelude to a legal battle this year that will have ramifications for the public purse and the football industry. We will robustly defend our position, said a Premier League spokesman.

 

The football creditors rule came under particularly scrutiny last year when HMRC was forced to accept a deal whereby it will receive just £4.8 million of Portsmouths £24 million debt to it, even though football clubs who were owed money are being paid back in full.

 

HMRC says it is taking the action on behalf of all unsecured creditors who often receive around 20 per cent of their debt when a football club go into administration.

 

 

it goes to court this week apparently (i was reading about it today but couldn't find a link more recent).

 

good news if true. stops it being a gamblers and speculators game........maybe ashley was ahead of the game 

 

HMRC couldn't give a s*** about the unsecured creditors, they're only interested in themselves.

the nations finances surely.

 

 

the rules as they are are a farce though. that clubs and players come first overriding national law.

[Mick]

the nations finances surely.

 

 

the rules as they are are a farce though. that clubs and players come first overriding national law.

 

The nations finances shouldn't come before unsecured creditors and that it usually the case.

[madras]

the nations finances surely.

 

 

the rules as they are are a farce though. that clubs and players come first overriding national law.

 

The nations finances shouldn't come before unsecured creditors and that it usually the case.

in this country ? the piece i read today (independent on sunday) mentioned a couple of cases where players and other clubs came before other larger and more worthy creditors.......including the nations finances.

[Mick]

in this country ? the piece i read today (independent on sunday) mentioned a couple of cases where players and other clubs came before other larger and more worthy creditors.......including the nations finances.

 

Normally if a company goes into liquidation the first people to get paid are HMRC and a lot of small companies go bust because the government get paid first.  The government don't like it that they are not top of the list of creditors, they couldn't give a shit about anybody but themselves.

[madras]

in this country ? the piece i read today (independent on sunday) mentioned a couple of cases where players and other clubs came before other larger and more worthy creditors.......including the nations finances.

 

Normally if a company goes into liquidation the first people to get paid are HMRC and a lot of small companies go bust because the government get paid first.  The government don't like it that they are not top of the list of creditors, they couldn't give a s*** about anybody but themselves.

thats when it goes into liquidation, isn't into receivership something different ?

[Village Idiot]

No quotes, so I don't know how true it is:

 

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Manchester-United-s-Dimitar-Berbatov-set-to-be-handed-new-175k-a-week-deal-as-reward-for-fine-form-article697437.html

 

United to reward derby benchwarmer with new £175k-a-week deal

Published 23:00 14/02/11 By David McDonnell

 

Dimitar Berbatov is set to be handed a new three-year deal by Manchester United.

 

Despite being left on the bench for the weekend's Manchester derby, Berbatov is seen as a key part of United's future and talks have already begun over a contract extension.

 

Berbatov, United's top scorer this season with 19 goals, has 17 months left on his current deal, which expires at the end of the 2011-12 campaign.

 

The striker's agent, Emile Dantchev, flew to Manchester last Friday to begin preliminary talks with United chief executive over a new agreement for his client.

 

 

Berbatov, 30, is likely to be offered a new three-year contract, worth £175,000-a-week, which will keep him at Old Trafford until the end of the 2015 season.

 

Although United's usual policy is to only offer 12-month extensions to players in their thirties, Berbatov has only turned 30 a fortnight ago and handing him a longer deal is not viewed as a risk.

 

Berbatov became United's record signing when he joined from Tottenham in a £30million deal on transfer deadline day in August 2008, signing a four-year deal.

 

After struggling in his first two seasons at Old Trafford, Berbatov has excelled this season, surpassing his best goal return for United in a campaign that has included hat-tricks against Liverpool and Birmingham and a club record-equalling five against Blackburn.

 

United are keen to recognise that with a new deal and Berbatov will become one of the club's highest-paid players under the terms of the new deal, although still a long way behind fellow striker Wayne Rooney, who earns £250,000-a-week.

 

Despite United's willingness to offer Berbatov a new deal, Fergie does not seem to have faith with the Bulgarian forward when it comes to the 'big' games where so much is at stake.

 

Berbatov has started only 21 of the club's 43 'big' games - Champions League knockout ties, Premier League matches against Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Tottenham and City, Carling Cup semi-finals, finals and the Club World Cup - since joining United.

 

ManU put themselves into a corner when awarding Rooney those stupid wages, particularly given his performance this season. Can see people like Nani et al wanting some significant raises soon.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

If I'd been treated like Berbatov this season I would be seriously considering a move away from Man Utd. The fact he gets dropped for all the big games when Rooney is untouchable even when playing terribly must be annoying.

[Guest neesy111]

Got to say as a taxpayer, I want any money owed to the taxman 1st.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Got to say as a taxpayer, I want any money owed to the taxman 1st.

 

Me too.

[Guest NewBoyPeetah]

Best time for Berba to move i think, his stock is through the roof at the moment and i would also be pissed if I wasn't being picked for any of the "big" games.

 

Although £175,000 a week over three years seems a pretty reiculous deal to me.

[Guest neesy111]

in this country ? the piece i read today (independent on sunday) mentioned a couple of cases where players and other clubs came before other larger and more worthy creditors.......including the nations finances.

 

Normally if a company goes into liquidation the first people to get paid are HMRC and a lot of small companies go bust because the government get paid first.  The government don't like it that they are not top of the list of creditors, they couldn't give a shit about anybody but themselves.

 

So you would prefer the nation goes bust before small businesses does.  When a company goes into receivership it's because it has no money to pay everyone.  Tax payer should always come first, not many people complain with these rules as well.

 

If HMRC did not receive all the money it's owed, it would push up taxes for the rest of us massively as well.

[Rob W]

It would be a very easy thing for Gorgeous george to slip a clause int eh next finance bill kicking the FA's rules into touch

[Guest neesy111]

It would be a very easy thing for Gorgeous george to slip a clause int eh next finance bill kicking the FA's rules into touch

 

Get's my approval.

[BottledDog]

No quotes, so I don't know how true it is:

 

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Manchester-United-s-Dimitar-Berbatov-set-to-be-handed-new-175k-a-week-deal-as-reward-for-fine-form-article697437.html

 

United to reward derby benchwarmer with new £175k-a-week deal

Published 23:00 14/02/11 By David McDonnell

 

Dimitar Berbatov is set to be handed a new three-year deal by Manchester United.

 

Despite being left on the bench for the weekend's Manchester derby, Berbatov is seen as a key part of United's future and talks have already begun over a contract extension.

 

Berbatov, United's top scorer this season with 19 goals, has 17 months left on his current deal, which expires at the end of the 2011-12 campaign.

 

The striker's agent, Emile Dantchev, flew to Manchester last Friday to begin preliminary talks with United chief executive over a new agreement for his client.

 

 

Berbatov, 30, is likely to be offered a new three-year contract, worth £175,000-a-week, which will keep him at Old Trafford until the end of the 2015 season.

 

Although United's usual policy is to only offer 12-month extensions to players in their thirties, Berbatov has only turned 30 a fortnight ago and handing him a longer deal is not viewed as a risk.

 

Berbatov became United's record signing when he joined from Tottenham in a £30million deal on transfer deadline day in August 2008, signing a four-year deal.

 

After struggling in his first two seasons at Old Trafford, Berbatov has excelled this season, surpassing his best goal return for United in a campaign that has included hat-tricks against Liverpool and Birmingham and a club record-equalling five against Blackburn.

 

United are keen to recognise that with a new deal and Berbatov will become one of the club's highest-paid players under the terms of the new deal, although still a long way behind fellow striker Wayne Rooney, who earns £250,000-a-week.

 

Despite United's willingness to offer Berbatov a new deal, Fergie does not seem to have faith with the Bulgarian forward when it comes to the 'big' games where so much is at stake.

 

Berbatov has started only 21 of the club's 43 'big' games - Champions League knockout ties, Premier League matches against Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Tottenham and City, Carling Cup semi-finals, finals and the Club World Cup - since joining United.

 

ManU put themselves into a corner when awarding Rooney those stupid wages, particularly given his performance this season. Can see people like Nani et al wanting some significant raises soon.

 

Rooney's on £250,000 a week? Not sure I can believe the figure but, as you say, whatever he did get by pulling his 'if you don't offer me an amazing new offer or I'm off' trick, is bound to have a knock on effect on the demands from the rest of the squad.

Shame that unlike the manc fecks, we couldn't afford to see that happen with Carroll.

[Stifler]

Got to say as a taxpayer, I want any money owed to the taxman 1st.

In normal practise I would say the workers should always come first, but when the players on their wages are involved I would say not.

 

However I can't for the life of me see why they avoid paying the tax in anyway, the only reason why you wouldn't pay it here and then is if you are trying to con them.

[Dokko]

These new financial rules which state you can only spend what you turnover, well what about a club who wants to expand or build a new stadium, what do they do?

[Guest neesy111]

These new financial rules which state you can only spend what you turnover, well what about a club who wants to expand or build a new stadium, what do they do?

 

That will be considered outside of normal turnover.

[jdckelly]

These new financial rules which state you can only spend what you turnover, well what about a club who wants to expand or build a new stadium, what do they do?

 

That will be considered outside of normal turnover.

nessy's right again, doesn't count nor does work on youth facilities, not sure on training ground but assume thats covered too