View Full Version : Revenue After Shels Again
chippie0001
12/08/2006, 3:10 PM
From todays paper below, wonder what the hell the story is this time or is it just the conclusion of the last one?
Legal
Posted: 12/08/2006
THE HIGH COURT 2006 No. 280 COS IN THE MATTER OF ACCOLADE LIMITED AND IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACTS, 1963-2003. NOTICE is hereby given that a Petition for the winding-up of the above-named company by the High Court was on the 1st day of August, 2006 presented to the High Court by Gerard Harrahill, Collector General, of Sarsfield House, Francis Street, Limerick, a creditor of the above-named company, and that the said Petition is directed to be heard before the High Court on the 23rd day of August, 2006, and that any creditor or contributory of the said company who wishes to support or oppose the making of an Order on the said Petition may appear at the time of hearing by himself or his Counsel for that purpose, and a copy of the Petition will be furnished to any creditor or contributory of the said company who requires it by the undersigned on payment of the regulated charge for the same. FRANCES COOKE, REVENUE SOLICITOR, DUBLIN CASTLE, DUBLIN 2. Solicitor for the Petitioner. Note: Any person who intends to appear at the hearing of the said Petition must serve or send by post to the above-named Petitioner or his Solicitor notice in writing of his intention to do so. The notice must state the name and address of the person or, if a firm, the name and address of the firm, and must he signed by the persor or firm, or his or their Solicitor, (If any), and must be served, or, if posted, must be sent by post in sufficient time to reach the above-named Solicitor or the Petitioner not later than 5 o'clock in the afternoon of the 22nd day of August, 2006
From the Indo
bohs til i die
12/08/2006, 3:13 PM
what do you mean by conclusion of the last one?
chippie0001
12/08/2006, 3:16 PM
I just wonder do they have to go back to court to agree that the last bill was paid. I doubt it given that the revenue have put a legal notice in the paper, but cannot imagine what Shels owe now for this to happen again.
bohs til i die
12/08/2006, 3:19 PM
I just wonder do they have to go back to court to agree that the last bill was paid. I doubt it given that the revenue have put a legal notice in the paper, but cannot imagine what Shels owe now for this to happen again.
maybe they havent paid up in the meantime
If the Revenue were happy with the money paid the last time they would not need to go back to the courts again as they would just cancel.
Seems like Shels may not have paid last sum of money in total or this is a new bill?
Either way seems certian that Shels have refaulted on money to the Revenue again.
:rolleyes:
Dr.Nightdub
12/08/2006, 5:24 PM
Looks like a new one to me. It refers to a petition for a winding-up order being put to the court on 1st August. If it was to do with the one from earlier in the season (June, I think?) you would logically expect the notice to refer to that petition.
Between the two Revenue appearances and threats of legal proceedings over the CHF points fiasco, it looks like Ollie's solicitor is gonna be a busy man this season. Again. Betcha he doesn't have to go to court to get paid.
bohs til i die
12/08/2006, 5:27 PM
Looks like a new one to me. It refers to a petition for a winding-up order being put to the court on 1st August. If it was to do with the one from earlier in the season (June, I think?) you would logically expect the notice to refer to that petition.
Between the two Revenue appearances and threats of legal proceedings over the CHF points fiasco, it looks like Ollie's solicitor is gonna be a busy man this season. Again. Betcha he doesn't have to go to court to get paid.
the previous one was March/April. It was in the Indo on the 16th of March
bohs til i die
12/08/2006, 10:23 PM
This raises serious questions about licensing and its effectiveness.
I think clubs who incur such issues, especially twice in one season have to face sanctions by the FAI/League
Dodge
12/08/2006, 11:47 PM
Beyond a joke at this stage. 2 winding up notices within 5 months!
Anto McC
13/08/2006, 9:18 AM
http://shelbournefc.ie/news.php?id=449
chippie0001
13/08/2006, 9:39 AM
Beyond a joke at this stage. 2 winding up notices within 5 months!
Can't see how there is historical debts as when the revenue filed the last time it would have been for all money outstanding that they knew of. Maybe this liability has only come to light now which begs other questions.
This really is making the league look a joke. 3 notices in 4/5 months to 2 of the leading clubs in the league. I know we all owe tax, we owe a lot but have come to a deal and are paying it off month by month. Others seem to disregard the law of ther land and feel they can do what they want. With this type of carry on there really is little future for a proper league in this country.
Clearly the Revenue are getting very tough on clubs otherwise the CCFC order would never have arisen.
CCFC explained that they were paying estimated 10k taxes a month but this should have been 20k or so which is how the 160k tax bill arose. We now pay 20k a month so when annual final bill due likely to be small top up or refund. This is standard business practice.
Shels have never explained how they came to owe 300k to the Revenue.
Maybe Shelbourne's explanation will be the same as Cork's- total incompetence!
It's not too difficult to work out tax liabilities at the end of the day, there's no excuse for only paying half of what you should over a period of 16 months.
Maybe Shelbourne's explanation will be the same as Cork's- total incompetence!
It's not too difficult to work out tax liabilities at the end of the day, there's no excuse for only paying half of what you should over a period of 16 months.
Come back to us when your club can afford to actually pay its players wages. :rolleyes:
Oh right, so the fact that Harps are having problems makes only paying half your tax for 16 months ok? The revenue actually did you a favour by forcing you to sort this out.
Just so you know, all wages have been paid in full, on time every time so far this season. And we even pay the tax on them too!
From www.shelbournefc.ie:
"Shelbourne FC wish to state that these debts will be discharged -as previously - before the due date."
Maybe I'm wrong but having spent many years of my life dealing with the Revenue Commissioners I've never once before seen them bring a company to court when that company had paid what they owed "before the due date" (14th of the month, every month, for those of you that don't know).
The Revenue are getting tough with all the clubs. You'll probably find that as the last winding-up petition was dated in mid-March it probably included taxes up to the end of December 2005. This new one is probably for taxes for the first six months of this year. Given Shels estimated wages you'd expect that to be between €20K and €25K a month which is another €120K to €150K that the Revenue are looking for.
pineapple stu
13/08/2006, 6:57 PM
Maybe I'm wrong but having spent many years of my life dealing with the Revenue Commissioners I've never once before seen them bring a company to court when that company had paid what they owed "before the due date" (14th of the month, every month, for those of you that don't know).
Thedue date in this instance, I assume, is 23rd August, when the case is up before the High Court.
Thedue date in this instance, I assume, is 23rd August, when the case is up before the High Court.
The due date is always the 14th day after the end of the month that the tax is deducted from the employees' wages. Shels are just making it sound like they're not really in arrears.
DmanDmythDledge
13/08/2006, 7:12 PM
What's the procedure if Shels haven't paid up by the 23rd? Will they immediately be put out of business?
pineapple stu
13/08/2006, 7:14 PM
The due date is always the 14th day after the end of the month that the tax is deducted from the employees' wages. Shels are just making it sound like they're not really in arrears.
I'm an accountant - I'm aware of that. ;)
You're right that Shels are trying to put spin on it as usual, but in this case, it's probably fair to use the High Court sate as the "due date".
They'll have it paid by then, remember they still have an asset in their lease at Tolka Park which is keeping them going. Dublin City didn't have that luxury, neither did Cork City I presume.
pineapple stu
13/08/2006, 7:17 PM
True. But it's quite clear that they're simply unviable as they continue. Long-term, they'll have to make serious cut-backs to survive.
Not necessarily. They're taking a big gamble but one day it might just pay off.
Why own an asset that's earning you very little money. Turn that asset into hard cash that can be used to fund a team capable of reaching the group stages of the Champions League and you'll have sufficient income thereafter to keep you on top a la Rosenborg.
It doesn't cost much to rent a ground, I'm open to correction but I think Rovers have been paying between €50,000 and €75,000 a year, hardly worth keeping an asset worth maybe 100 or 200 times that to avoid that cost every year (assuming you manage and use the money properly).
That's the theory, it could very well prove to be true but it's a win-or-die gamble at the end of the day.
pineapple stu
13/08/2006, 7:30 PM
It doesn't cost much to rent a ground, I'm open to correction but I think Rovers have been paying between €50,000 and €75,000 a year, hardly worth keeping an asset worth maybe 100 or 200 times that to avoid that cost every year (assuming you manage and use the money properly).
Don't they only own the lease on the ground, though, not the ground itself?
It's a big assumption you're making too!
Don't they only own the lease on the ground, though, not the ground itself?
It's a big assumption you're making too!
Leases on a piece of ground that size in Dublin are extremely valuable. Assume Shels have even 25 years left on their lease, you'll find plenty of builders offering seven or eight figure sums to get their hands on it now rather than waiting 25 years to see what might happen.
Site values that close to Dublin will fetch from €60,000 to €100,000 per unit. If they (the developers) get permission to build up five or six storeys they could easily fit 300 or 400 apartments into the current Tolka. Shels' lease should is sufficiently long to see them get around 40% of that value.
I've dealt with many of these sorts of transactions in my work over the last 15 years.
pineapple stu
13/08/2006, 8:07 PM
How long's the lease on the ground though?
Schwalker
13/08/2006, 8:09 PM
Leases on a piece of ground that size in Dublin are extremely valuable. Assume Shels have even 25 years left on their lease, you'll find plenty of builders offering seven or eight figure sums to get their hands on it now rather than waiting 25 years to see what might happen.
Site values that close to Dublin will fetch from €60,000 to €100,000 per unit. If they (the developers) get permission to build up five or six storeys they could easily fit 300 or 400 apartments into the current Tolka. Shels' lease should is sufficiently long to see them get around 40% of that value.
I've dealt with many of these sorts of transactions in my work over the last 15 years.
But the club will need a stadium regardless...
pineapple stu
13/08/2006, 8:14 PM
Government grants will sort a lot out in that regard.
Schwalker
13/08/2006, 8:21 PM
Government grants will sort a lot out in that regard.
They will..?
They will fork out the money for a new stadium while the club is laughing all the way to the bank? :eek:
OneRedArmy
13/08/2006, 8:24 PM
Regardless of whether or not Shels pay up just before the deadline again, waiting until you've been petitioned to pay every tax bill is a kamikaze way of doing business and looks terrible for the League.
Yet again it seems Ollie thinks he's getting the last laugh by continually taking a confrontational attitude, but as the saying goes, he who laughs last usually doesn't get the joke......
pineapple stu
13/08/2006, 8:26 PM
They will..?
They will fork out the money for a new stadium while the club is laughing all the way to the bank? :eek:
Sorry, could put that better.
Yeah, they'll have to find somewhere to play. But the Government will give help to improve the ground.
Don't know if the Government would given financial aid with a greenfield site. If so, then Shels (or any club) could in theory use the money to fund the team and go down the current Shels road over and over. I presume the Government would cop on to that and stop it fairly quickly though.
Schwalker
13/08/2006, 9:36 PM
Sorry, could put that better.
Yeah, they'll have to find somewhere to play. But the Government will give help to improve the ground.
Don't know if the Government would given financial aid with a greenfield site. If so, then Shels (or any club) could in theory use the money to fund the team and go down the current Shels road over and over. I presume the Government would cop on to that and stop it fairly quickly though.
It did sound a bit to easy...:D
dcfcsteve
13/08/2006, 9:46 PM
Not necessarily. They're taking a big gamble but one day it might just pay off.
Why own an asset that's earning you very little money. Turn that asset into hard cash that can be used to fund a team capable of reaching the group stages of the Champions League and you'll have sufficient income thereafter to keep you on top a la Rosenborg.
It doesn't cost much to rent a ground, I'm open to correction but I think Rovers have been paying between €50,000 and €75,000 a year, hardly worth keeping an asset worth maybe 100 or 200 times that to avoid that cost every year (assuming you manage and use the money properly).
That's the theory, it could very well prove to be true but it's a win-or-die gamble at the end of the day.
Agree to some degree, but there's a fundamental problem with draining the lifeblood out of an asset. Eventually there's nothing left !
At least an asset grows in value with time, and can therefore continue to support you. Following Shels approach will see the complete opposite - the golden goose is slowly dying.
Football has plenty of corpses of much more viable teams than Shels who took the 'gamble' of success. Clubs stretching themselves a bit in pursuit of success is sensible. Clubs stretching themselves to the point of breaking/disaster is just too big a gamble to take.
bohs til i die
14/08/2006, 7:12 AM
Stato
Shels have already done a deal on the Tolka lease and have been receive cash from the developer over the past few years. There are rumours circulating that Shels have to be out of Tolka very soon [I heard it from a Shels fan to begin with].
The lease may have been worth a lot once but its only a few months since Ollie had to stump up over 300k to the revenue so I wonder how he got that? My guess is he got it from the developer who in turn will give Ollie 400k less when the time comes to settle up on the lease.
Ronnie
14/08/2006, 8:31 AM
If Shels and Cork only owe 20k a month they must be doing very well. George OCallaghan said he was earning 120kpa, and that 3 other players at City were on over a 100k. Now, at 400k for 4 players the tax and PRSI would be 10k per month -does that mean that everyone else in the clubs tax and PRSI only comes to the same? Unlikely I think.
monutdfc
14/08/2006, 9:06 AM
Not necessarily. They're taking a big gamble but one day it might just pay off.
Why own an asset that's earning you very little money. Turn that asset into hard cash that can be used to fund a team capable of reaching the group stages of the Champions League and you'll have sufficient income thereafter to keep you on top a la Rosenborg.
...
...
That's the theory, it could very well prove to be true but it's a win-or-die gamble at the end of the day.
Stato, I think Ollie has already taken that gamble....and he's down to his last few chips
BohsPartisan
14/08/2006, 9:25 AM
Shels cannot be allowed get away with this. They have the most expensive squad in the league yet they can't make their commitments to the taxman. They really should have points deducted for this. This season is a farce.
If Shels and Cork only owe 20k a month they must be doing very well. George OCallaghan said he was earning 120kpa, and that 3 other players at City were on over a 100k. Now, at 400k for 4 players the tax and PRSI would be 10k per month -does that mean that everyone else in the clubs tax and PRSI only comes to the same? Unlikely I think.
Sounds about right, Cork always pay less than the Dublin clubs for the non "star name" players as most of the players come from Cork and have no other offers for them. In Dublin you've 4-5 clubs looking to make you an offer if you're any use. Before anyone starts I'm not trying to have a go at Cork here.
charliesboots
14/08/2006, 9:40 AM
Regardless of whether or not Shels pay up just before the deadline again, waiting until you've been petitioned to pay every tax bill is a kamikaze way of doing business and looks terrible for the League.
They will also have to pay all legal costs of the High Court proceedings as they did for the previous winding up order.
It seems to me that Shels restructured their payments to the RC after their previous winding up order and that one of the conditions attached was that any default of payment would result in an immediate application to the high court for a winding up order. Can't blame the RC
hopefully thats the last we hear of shels from now on
i look forward to the arguments on here on what we should do with theie "expunged" results.
Thankfully Pats thought ahead and lost to them earlier in the season
hopefully thats the last we hear of shels from now on
i look forward to the arguments on here on what we should do with theie "expunged" results.
Thankfully Pats thought ahead and lost to them earlier in the season
POTM! :) :)
Come back to us when your club can afford to actually pay its players wages. :rolleyes:
Harps like any half competent business pays it tax bill based on individual players tax credits, cut offs and other income. The tax (exact figure) is paid every month.
I couldn't believe it when I saw Lennox's piece in the Sunday Tribune outlining the half assed way Cork were doing things as if this was some kind of creditable explanation.
Harps are having cash flow problems this season due to drastically below projection gates, and are dealing with these problems responsibly by cutting back the wage bill even though its not a popular or nice thing to have to do (loan out top players to your rivals) and have no problems with the tax man.
Come back to me when your club can work out basic payroll systems and don't be so bloody arrogant. :mad:
Dodge
14/08/2006, 10:22 AM
Great Post Mr T. I can't believe how lightly Lennox got away with it. His original statement said Historical debt (despite the company being less than 3 years old apprently), then within days his explanation was their "accountant" had adised them to pay €10k a month, and it should've been double that. Who the **** doesn't know how much they're paying in salaries each month? If he paid the right amount last year, did he not get suspicious when the accountant said it halved this year?
No fair enough Cork were able to pay it but it seems to me like Cork were chancing their arm, hoping to get away with the the tax bill. Oh and AFAIK Lennox is a proper businessman so he can be allowed one or two mistakes but the other fella is an out and out chancer and I can't believe the league are doing NOTHING to act against a club that has been served with 2 winding up orders this year and has had players go on strike due to unpaid wages.
green-blood
14/08/2006, 10:30 AM
I've promised myself that I'm not going to get hysterical about this crap anymore but how did Shels manage to have their debts restructured at teh last winding up order
they publically said that it was paid in full - lie
the revenue have said that restructuring is now on the table at a winding up order hearing - obvious lie
does this mean that Olly's sugar daddies didnt pay up the 300K as claimed - shels league position is a fraud.
bohs til i die
14/08/2006, 10:30 AM
They will also have to pay all legal costs of the High Court proceedings as they did for the previous winding up order.
It seems to me that Shels restructured their payments to the RC after their previous winding up order and that one of the conditions attached was that any default of payment would result in an immediate application to the high court for a winding up order. Can't blame the RC
Shels had to discharge the entire amount the last time, about €310k apparently.
The new winding up order was issued because either ...
1. Shels had debts going back further and th revenue want it cleared
Or
2. They havent paid any tax since April when the last winding up oder was rescinded because they paid up.
charliesboots
14/08/2006, 10:35 AM
thanks btid.
i think option 2 seems the more likely but that's just speculation.
Thankfully I'm working right next to the four courts and would enjoy nothing more than to be present if Shels/Accolade are wound up.
Great Post Mr T. I can't believe how lightly Lennox got away with it. His original statement said Historical debt (despite the company being less than 3 years old apprently), then within days his explanation was their "accountant" had adised them to pay €10k a month, and it should've been double that. Who the **** doesn't know how much they're paying in salaries each month? If he paid the right amount last year, did he not get suspicious when the accountant said it halved this year?
No fair enough Cork were able to pay it but it seems to me like Cork were chancing their arm, hoping to get away with the the tax bill. Oh and AFAIK Lennox is a proper businessman so he can be allowed one or two mistakes but the other fella is an out and out chancer and I can't believe the league are doing NOTHING to act against a club that has been served with 2 winding up orders this year and has had players go on strike due to unpaid wages.
Add to this the fact that employment law requires employers to give employees a wage slip outlining their gross and net pay and their individual deductions in terms of tax and PRSI.
Paying an "estimate" of tax based on the overall net wage bill is a ridiculous and embarassing procedure for a company to admit to be doing, not to mention in contravention of the law, yet here was a chairman of a "big" club happily saying in to a National newspaper that "this is the way its done".
Add to this the fact that employment law requires employers to give employees a wage slip outlining their gross and net pay and their individual deductions in terms of tax and PRSI.
Paying an "estimate" of tax based on the overall net wage bill is a ridiculous and embarassing procedure for a company to admit to be doing, not to mention in contravention of the law, yet here was a chairman of a "big" club happily saying in to a National newspaper that "this is the way its done".
shamrock rovers employ part time players as sub contractors (or the like?~) or something so they dont handle players tax for them now
its up to their own players to sort themselves out in these situations
maybe the way to go now?
Revenue would not be happy with this.
If you have people working for you as their sole/main employer, and are providing them with their place of work, transport, kit, training gear etc they must be considered employees.
Perhaps some of the accountants on board could clarify that one but AFAIK its been tried and rejected by revenue. Employers can't just dodge their responsabilties to pay the tax on the salaries they give to employees.
WeAreRovers
14/08/2006, 11:01 AM
shamrock rovers employ all tehir players as sub contractors or something so they dont handle players tax at all now
its up to their own players to sort themselves out
maybe the way to go now?
Where the fook did you get that from???? Nonsense.
KOH
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.