Revenue After Shels Again

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

14/08/2006, 9:53 AM
Mr A

Quote:

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! :) :)
14/08/2006, 10:13 AM
Mr_T

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

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:
14/08/2006, 10:22 AM
Dodge

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.
14/08/2006, 10:30 AM
green-blood

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.
14/08/2006, 10:30 AM
bohs til i die

Quote:

Originally Posted by charliesboots

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.
14/08/2006, 10:35 AM
charliesboots

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.
14/08/2006, 10:52 AM
Mr_T

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

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".
14/08/2006, 10:54 AM
wws

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_T

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?
14/08/2006, 10:58 AM
Mr_T

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.
14/08/2006, 11:01 AM
WeAreRovers

Quote:

Originally Posted by wws

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
14/08/2006, 11:05 AM
Dodge

OOOhhh is wws's secret identity about to be revealed? Dun dun dun...
14/08/2006, 11:20 AM
chippie0001

Quote:

Originally Posted by wws

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?

That same rumour floats about for Shels. There is no way it is true, I looked into it at Bohs and its 100% illegal. Maybe for part time players with other jobs you can make a case, for full time players not a hope in hell.
14/08/2006, 11:35 AM
wws

Quote:

Originally Posted by chippie0001

That same rumour floats about for Shels. There is no way it is true, I looked into it at Bohs and its 100% illegal. Maybe for part time players with other jobs you can make a case, for full time players not a hope in hell.

sorry chippie

you're right - it is for part time players in other employ as well as football
14/08/2006, 11:45 AM
manic da hoop

Sorry, but could someone please explain to me what an earth is "historical" debt? Either you owe someone money or you don't! Does calling it "historical" kind of make it alright if you haven't bothered to pay them? If so, why don't I try defaulting on my mortgage repayments and just say to my bank when they eventually come knocking, "ah, sure it's just historical - you gave me my mortgage ages ago, didn't you? I'll get back to you with my repayments when I'm good and ready."....eh, I don't think so:o
14/08/2006, 12:02 PM
Dodge

In fairness not sure Revenue accept that as an excuse, just gullible fans.
14/08/2006, 12:09 PM
Schumi

Quote:

Originally Posted by wws

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

I think we may have overdone it though.
14/08/2006, 12:17 PM
passerrby

Quote:

Originally Posted by charliesboots

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.

Im half way around the world but i think its our duty to all make it home for any wind up order involving ollie
14/08/2006, 12:20 PM
TonyD

Quote:

Originally Posted by wws

sorry chippie

you're right - it is for part time players in other employ as well as football

Irrespective of whether a player is part-time or full time, there is no way a club could get away with deeming a player a sub-contractor. I've some experience with this(though it does go back a number of years.) It's fairly common practice in the building industry, but not applicable to a football club. Players are employees of clubs - full stop. If any club tried the sub-contractor angle it would go to Revenue/Social Welfare for a determination and they wouldn't stand a chance of getting away with it.
14/08/2006, 12:37 PM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

In fairness not sure Revenue accept that as an excuse, just gullible fans.

Speaking of gullible fans, check out the Shels board where one fan (and in fairness to them, it is just one fan this time - the rest seem to have a resigned silence, probably tinged with hope that ploughing money into Shelbourne FC Ltd, a dormant company, will save them) reckons that, as fans and therefore creditors of Accolade, all they have to do is turn up and oppose the winding up petition like the notice says. :D:D

I can't see how it could be historical debt though - would have thought the initial settlement would have included all back debt.
14/08/2006, 12:45 PM
paudie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_T

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".

I'd imagine City are/were paying a monthly PAYE/PRSI Direct Debit figure to Revenue with the balance being payable in January each year. It's a very standard practice for any business.

Obviously at the start of the year you have to estimate what the monthly figure will be so it won't be same as the "Exact" monthly figure. This is what Lennox meant I imagine, though he didn't expalin it very well.

I presume City's monthly Direct Debit for 2005 was too small(possibly deliberately), and they were left with a big balance for 2005, didn't pay it in Jan 2006 so the Revenue came after them.

I'm sure Revenue demanded a more realistic monthly DD be paid in 2006.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page