The reason for the ticket pricing problem and falling attendances solved at last...

My understanding

1) Creditors with security, e.g. a bank loan secured on a building or other asset. This also includes the adminstrator's costs, bankruptcy costs etc

2) Floating charge holders - similar to security but not as high up. Banks might lend in this way if there were insufficient assets to use as security, e.g. if a company did not own any buildings or substantial assets there may be a floatiing charge on its balance sheet

3) Preferential creditors - usually government departments including tax authorities, but not entirely sure. Also includes staff salaries, pension contributions etc.

4) Other creditors - normal creditors, including suppliers. This is where I think the football creditors should sit. Some sources say tax etc should also go in here, but even so they should get at least the same share as football creditors.

5) Interest on debts

6) Shareholders

7) £30 is far too much for a football match at any level

Maybe there's an accountant (cue BFC Dave!) on here who can clarify. In any event I think the football rule is pushing the law and as you say the HMRC are after clubs who use it. For the first time in my life I say "Good Luck" to them!

On a slightly different subject, a couple of months ago I saw a photo of some Everton fans demonstrating against club with banners saying "We want investment!". Well invest then! Why do football fans always want someone else to invest - why not do it themselves? Football is doomed if the only way it can survive is to have rich business people ploughing money in. Doomed!

 

Re: Plagiarism is alive and well it seems.....

Grabs popcorn.

 

Re: My understanding

Hi Ian,

HMRC used to rank as pref creditors but that changed a few years back... I think they rank as unsecured now.

 

Re: Plagiarism is alive and well it seems.....

Hardly plagiarism - this issue has been debated more than enough to ensure that most comments recycle points already made. I think it's an excellent summary.

 

Re: The reason for the ticket pricing problem and falling attendances solved at last.

Not sure I agree with that. I think the English game has an opportunity to lead the way, but is failing miserably to take it. The history, tradition and competitiveness of our league competitions would ensure that interest will always be there regardless of the wages, and therefore will attract the TV rights and a good proportion of quality players.

If some of the mercenaries decided that playing in Russia is better because there's more money there, let them go. Would we really be any worse off without them? I would argue that we'd be a lot better off.

It's not like anyone is suggesting the players shouldn't be well paid for what they do, it just needs capping at some semblance of respectability. I would argue for capping MONTHLY salaries at the average annual salary for the country - that way the players would still earn handsome salaries of 12x the national average. Even using the same and applying it to WEEKLY salaries would be a massive improvement on what we have now and make most clubs sustainable.

The rest of the cash left over from the TV deal once you've implemented this should be spent on keeping ticket prices low, improving stadia, and investing in coaches and facilities at the grass roots level.

 

Cheers Dave

Wasn't sure about that bit. Even if he ranks as an unsecured creditor, the tax man should still go in the pot with football creditors. I still think the preferential treatment for football creditors is bordering on illegal. The amounts involved are usually so high (players wages, loan fees, manager's payoffs etc) that they just about wipe out anything a normal unsecured creditor might expect.

So the rich football people get even richer and the normal business creditors get shafted. Disgrace.

 

Spookily...

my name IS Dave

 

Kin-el, and I thought I posted epic threads!

Great read though. Nowt we didnt know already like, but nevertheless a well-worded and interesting read Sir.. I do disagree with 1 point however. And thats the fact that nobody has forced BFC to pay these wages for players. Ok, we are now buying cheaper, paying less, but just under a year ago the very same board of directors were happy to pay out for a plethora of has-been, high-earning Premier League players..

 

Re: Kin-el, and I thought I posted epic threads!

Great post.

Consider the impact of fans though. Fans are just as guilty at pushing for "new investment", and wanting a new striker, wanting experienced players with premiership experience, the benefactor putting in just a few more million because the new rules arent in yet and may not come in after all.

Short term failure is leapt on, instant retuns expected, patience an undervalued currency.

And thats just here in the last few weeks when we lost 2 games.

Success and sugar coated want are rampant in modern society, and not just in football.

 

Re: We went in to admin because of one person

That person has never explained why the Clubs shareholders were by-passed and the Club put into administration.

 

Re: Kin-el, and I thought I posted epic threads!

top post

 

Re: We went in to admin because of one person

Although blame can be appointed to one figure head ultimately a number of influences at boardroom level caused the natwest to pull the plug on the overdraft.

 

Re: Plagiarism is alive and well it seems.....

And who did you paraphrase?

I've no doubt you could find thousands of posts on this board, let alone other forums, alone that share an identical sentiment.