Cork Winding up Notice?

Printable View

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

02/07/2006, 9:15 PM
higgins

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Read the Business Post article. It states Cork met with Revenue to agree a repayment deal. You don't stall with Revenue to get a better deal.

Would you say you're being ridden rock solid by the tax man?

That's what I am saying. The fact that, under current rules, Shels and Cork have done nothing wrong is the sham. It means clubs can essentially overspend as before and the FAI simply won't step in. It's unfair on Cork and Shels fans - so far - that a Licencing Scheme which was introduced to stop clubs going under is actually unable to do anything even when clubs are threatened with liquidation.

Well not just because shels were one of the clubs but I dont think revenue giving notice to wind up a company is enough reason to punish a club.

Its a bill that needs paying and unlike a printer :) or some other day to day bill the tax man has a neat little trick to get his money, i.e. Wind you up!!

I think the current ruling saying you need a TCC is enough to cover this. Revenue will not give you a TCC if they think you cant pay it back and rather then have the FAI get involved in the tax affairs of every club I think its acceptable they rely on the the Tax mans opinion.

You see Shels owed 300K, Cork seem to owe 160K. How would you differ between the two? Who is in a position to say how much of a debt any club can have? Its not realistic to put figures on every club and as I mentioned before different clubs have different debts and whats workable for one would not be for the other.

You want new rules brought in to cover this? thats fair enough, its your opinion but I think this area is fine as it is. How would you intend to work any new rule ??
02/07/2006, 9:22 PM
Schumi

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnDai

Could other companies owed money make a difference here? There is an option for them to come forward and demand their money too is there not, which would make a big difference?

My understanding is that they could but if that put the company out of business, they could end up getting only a small percentage of the money so it'd probably be safer for them not to.
02/07/2006, 9:26 PM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

You want new rules brought in to cover this? thats fair enough, its your opinion but I think this area is fine as it is. How would you intend to work any new rule ??

The area cannot possibly be fine enough as it is if clubs are being hit with winding-up petitions every couple of months.

UEFA Licencing calls for all clubs to be solvent - that would be a huge start. Insolvent clubs should be docked points. Clubs should present budgets at the start of the year which show them meeting all their expenses; again, any club not meeting this budget (within reasonable levels, which I'm not going to bother defining for the purposes of a hypothetical post) should be docked points. Simple as.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

In any case, can a company that has only been in existance for 3 years really call something "historic" and incurred "back in the bad old days"?

I presume when the company was incorporated, it took over the business of the unincorporated entity which was around before. In which case, it would have started off with the balance sheet at the date of incorporation, which could have included older debts.
02/07/2006, 9:45 PM
OneRedArmy

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnDai

Could other companies owed money make a difference here? There is an option for them to come forward and demand their money too is there not, which would make a big difference?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schumi

My understanding is that they could but if that put the company out of business, they could end up getting only a small percentage of the money so it'd probably be safer for them not to.

A winding up order would generally make other creditors tighten up their credit terms, cash on delivery or reduction in credit amounts etc.
02/07/2006, 9:53 PM
higgins

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

The area cannot possibly be fine enough as it is if clubs are being hit with winding-up petitions every couple of months.

UEFA Licencing calls for all clubs to be solvent - that would be a huge start. Insolvent clubs should be docked points. Clubs should present budgets at the start of the year which show them meeting all their expenses; again, any club not meeting this budget (within reasonable levels, which I'm not going to bother defining for the purposes of a hypothetical post) should be docked points. Simple as.

Im sorry to say its not simple as!
any club can come up with a budget!! I could do you out one tomorrow if you want. Not meeting your budget means your docked points :eek: Are you living in the real world ??? Plenty of businesses run into cash flow problems and dont meet their expectations.
Could shels not just put in Setanta FAI Cup League Cup and League winners and Champions League even and get away with it. Will they be punished for not winning a competition like they said :D

Easy for you to say simple as when you dont have any idea how to work it or at least you have not stated any way of working it.

A winding up notice is just a way the tax man has of getting his money.

If the printer says they wont print anymore until they are paid would this also fall into a points deduction!
If Guinness say they will not deliver stock until you pay your last bill is this cause for further deduction.

To me it seems it's a UCD fan trying to come up with ideas to bring bigger clubs down to your level.

Your going to complicate things by adding in rules like that. If its not black and white theres no point adding things in. As I said the TCC covers this in theory and if you cant trust revenue then whats the point.
02/07/2006, 10:29 PM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

Not meeting your budget means your docked points :eek: Are you living in the real world ???

Show me where I said that? If you can genuinely explain your problems and what you're going to do about them, fair enough. If you're having to use capital expenditure to meet current expenses, you should be docked expenses. If you make a loss of maybe 5% of turnover or more, penalties should be considered. It works in other leagues - don't see why it can't work here. I already said I don't intend going into details for a hypothetical debate - that doesn't mean they can't be worked out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

If the printer says they won't print anymore until they are paid would this also fall into a points deduction!
If Guinness say they will not deliver stock until you pay your last bill is this cause for further deduction.

Where are you getting this from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

To me it seems it's a UCD fan trying to come up with ideas to bring bigger clubs down to your level.

Nope, it's trying to get clubs to cop onto themselves before they all go broke. It's trying to get a Licencing system which is pro-active rather than reactive - i.e. stopping clubs from getting into trouble with Revenue rather than penalising them only when they get wound up by Revenue.

The league can't go on in an environment where clubs think it's OK to rack up debts. The losses the clubs are making have to stop, and soon. The FAI are doing nothing to stop this.
02/07/2006, 10:36 PM
Peadar

I take it the RC have no jurisdiction over Derry?
The UCD heads think they're right clever boyos going on about football clubs just because they're not a club. I suppose they're praying a few of the top clubs go out of business so that they have a chance of being allowed into the new Premiership.

The RC can investigate a business going back over the last 10 years. They're investigating every club and they're going to find a lot of money being owed. The clubs may not agree but the RC isn't giving them much room to negotiate. In the next few weeks it will be some other club who's being served with a winding up petition.
02/07/2006, 11:02 PM
OneRedArmy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peadar

I take it the RC have no jurisdiction over Derry?

Correct. But you have nothing to fear as the Inland Revenue in the North woke up to football clubs slipshod business methods a long time ago. The Revenue has petitioned to wind up numerous clubs over the last few years (Derry, Ards, Coleraine) & actually succeeded in putting Omagh out of business.

They would & have laughed away any Roversesque 3c in the Euro offer & would happily put a club under to avoid any moral hazard arising.

I think your point about it being a matter of time before other clubs get the same demands is spot on.

As a Derry fan I don't speak from any moral high ground, it wasn't so long ago we were in the same sort of position.
03/07/2006, 12:30 AM
Student Mullet

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

UEFA Licencing calls for all clubs to be solvent - that would be a huge start. Insolvent clubs should be docked points. Clubs should present budgets at the start of the year which show them meeting all their expenses; again, any club not meeting this budget (within reasonable levels, which I'm not going to bother defining for the purposes of a hypothetical post) should be docked points.

I'm with Higgins on this one. If we did this we'd be docking points left, right and centre. It would ruin the league as a sporting competition.

I actually think the FAI have the correct idea. Limit players wages (incl. PAYE & PRSI) to 65% (or whatever) of turnover. That'd solve the problem as clubs wouldn't build up debts on other expences.
03/07/2006, 12:33 AM
Dr.Nightdub

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Insolvent clubs should be docked points. Clubs should present budgets at the start of the year which show them meeting all their expenses; again, any club not meeting this budget (within reasonable levels, which I'm not going to bother defining for the purposes of a hypothetical post) should be docked points.

Stu, when the criteria for membership of the new top division were being discussed, you and other UCD fans were very vociferous about a club's League standing being determined solely by playing criteria - i.e. that on- and off-the-field issues should be kept separate. Now you're saying that a club's League standing (i.e. the number of points it has) should be subject to non-playing criteria e.g. tax compliance.

Which is it to be?
03/07/2006, 2:13 AM
thomas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Nightdub

Stu, when the criteria for membership of the new top division were being discussed, you and other UCD fans were very vociferous about a club's League standing being determined solely by playing criteria - i.e. that on- and off-the-field issues should be kept separate. Now you're saying that a club's League standing (i.e. the number of points it has) should be subject to non-playing criteria e.g. tax compliance.

Which is it to be?

What does it matter, even with a points deduction you can finish third and still be credited with a league title.
03/07/2006, 9:09 AM
Mr_T

Spin.

Historic Debt?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LENNOX

‘‘A lot of it goes back to the bad old days where most clubs did not maintain proper books,” he said. ‘‘There were some problems over historic PAYE and PRSI payments and we are trying to sort it all out.”

Not "All of it goes back to the bad old days"

Not even "Most of it goes back to the bad old days"

Yet everybody, even non Cork fans can somehow read that quote and conclude unequivocally that this is all down to old debts raised by an audit. A decent audit at most clubs, even well run ones, would reveal many many "sharp practices" in relation to paying of tax on wages, including the practice of paying "expenses" as a large element of the bottom line. Even with Cork paying a lot of their taxes (which is a relatively new development in the eL) a revenue audit would leave most clubs with a bill to pay. A revenue audit of almost any business in the country would leave it with a bill to pay.
03/07/2006, 9:33 AM
Dodge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Nightdub

Stu, when the criteria for membership of the new top division were being discussed, you and other UCD fans were very vociferous about a club's League standing being determined solely by playing criteria - i.e. that on- and off-the-field issues should be kept separate. Now you're saying that a club's League standing (i.e. the number of points it has) should be subject to non-playing criteria e.g. tax compliance.

Which is it to be?

In fairness Doc, he's never said off the field points shouldn't be taken into it. He's always said if clubs achieve the club license, it should then be down to on the field performance. Set minimum standards and those that don't reach them shouldn't be allowed in. I agree with him 100% BTW
03/07/2006, 9:37 AM
gufct

The revenue are doing

audits on all el clubs at the moment we had one over a fortnight ago but ive heard nothing back yet. Most clubs are going to be facing a large bill especially those dealing in cash payments so id say there will be lot more stories on this in the coming months.
03/07/2006, 9:55 AM
Macy

People need to wake up and smell the coffee. The league obviously can't sustain the current wage levels, well not when clubs have to pay the correct amount of tax. The sooner everyone realises that the better.

The FAI have to enforce financial conditions on the clubs, or else we'll never have a sustainable league. After the revenue finish their current audits, and clubs settle (or otherwise), then extremely strict conditions should be put in place.

And most of those strict conditions wouldn't even be that strict in the non-footballing world. Gross pay signed contracts, Payslips with every pay packet, P60's, P35 returns.

I'd also make compliance an issue for both player and club - the players and PFAI have allowed the situation develop that under the counter/ cash payments are acceptable. Infact the PFAI argue against Gross Pay contracts. Have a standard contract that includes the player stating that they will not accept payments without payslips or remittance advice (if it is genuine expenses).

I say that speaking of a supporter of a club that I wouldn't be at all surprised if we were next up.
03/07/2006, 10:19 AM
higgins

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Show me where I said that? If you can genuinely explain your problems and what you're going to do about them, fair enough. If you're having to use capital expenditure to meet current expenses, you should be docked expenses. If you make a loss of maybe 5% of turnover or more, penalties should be considered. It works in other leagues - don't see why it can't work here. I already said I don't intend going into details for a hypothetical debate - that doesn't mean they can't be worked out.

From your previous post you said,

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Clubs should present budgets at the start of the year which show them meeting all their expenses; again, any club not meeting this budget (within reasonable levels, which I'm not going to bother defining for the purposes of a hypothetical post) should be docked points

You want clubs who make 5% loss to be fined yet your going on about this new league as not being fair as it not all to do with results on the pitch :)

Its the right of any business to spend their money wht way they like.

IF Tolka was sold for 1million in the morning and shels spent it on a bonus for Dave Rogers, its none of anyone business! If they were to use the proceeds to buy in 3 or 4 new players and up people wages for a season its none of anyones business!

You talk as if Shels go out of business every few months!
Shels are over 100 years old and still very much in business... Your petty plans to deduct clubs points due to them making more money than the smaller clubs wont work.

I suppose if Bohs get their 2million on the future sale of Dalymount it would not be fair money in your eyes??

If you have a TCC it has to be assumed your Tax affairs are in order.

Your opening up a can of worms if you think the FAI are going to go through every club every season and measure these 5% and weigh up who had a budget that was fair and who didnt!!!
Can't believe your suggesting this
03/07/2006, 10:29 AM
higgins

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

In fairness Doc, he's never said off the field points shouldn't be taken into it. He's always said if clubs achieve the club license, it should then be down to on the field performance. Set minimum standards and those that don't reach them shouldn't be allowed in. I agree with him 100% BTW

I also agree with off the field coming into the equation and am fully behind licensing but you have to add reality into things and this presenting of budgets and points deduction if you come in less than 5% ?

You honestly feel thats workable ?

Stu seems to be annoyed that some clubs are able to carry more debt than others. He is annoyed that some clubs have assets and can use these to fund the playing side of things.

Its not good business practice to carry on like this and cash will dry up eventually but every club has the right to spend their money the way they like!

A 30/40K wage bill can be cut to 10/20K in a matter of weeks at any club and if they want to overspend for a year on the off chance they strike it luck then I see no problem with it as long as all bills are paid eventually.

The way I see things working with nearly all football clubs is they overspend for a season or two trying to reach the next level and then reality hits and they cut back and pay off the debts and then when all is normal again they try push the boat out again in the hope of hitting the jackpot.
I dont see anything wrong with this attitude as long as the debts are carried forward and will eventually be paid.

I dont agree with the 4cents in the euro situation way of clearing debts, that to me should carry some punishment in the rule book but spending your clubs money they way you want should not carry a points deduction.
03/07/2006, 10:35 AM
higgins

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macy

And most of those strict conditions wouldn't even be that strict in the non-footballing world. Gross pay signed contracts, Payslips with every pay packet, P60's, P35 returns.

I'd also make compliance an issue for both player and club - the players and PFAI have allowed the situation develop that under the counter/ cash payments are acceptable. Infact the PFAI argue against Gross Pay contracts. Have a standard contract that includes the player stating that they will not accept payments without payslips or remittance advice (if it is genuine expenses).

Now that makes perfect sense to me!
If they were to deal with all those areas before going into the mess that would be Stu's idea it would stop the clubs having to run around trying to get this under the counter money.

Making a loss should not be a points deduction but the madness that is players wages in the EL can be sorted fairly easily.
03/07/2006, 10:42 AM
dcfcsteve

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

From your previous post you said,

You want clubs who make 5% loss to be fined yet your going on about this new league as not being fair as it not all to do with results on the pitch :)

Its the right of any business to spend their money wht way they like.

IF Tolka was sold for 1million in the morning and shels spent it on a bonus for Dave Rogers, its none of anyone business! If they were to use the proceeds to buy in 3 or 4 new players and up people wages for a season its none of anyones business!

You talk as if Shels go out of business every few months!
Shels are over 100 years old and still very much in business... Your petty plans to deduct clubs points due to them making more money than the smaller clubs wont work.

I suppose if Bohs get their 2million on the future sale of Dalymount it would not be fair money in your eyes??

If you have a TCC it has to be assumed your Tax affairs are in order.

Your opening up a can of worms if you think the FAI are going to go through every club every season and measure these 5% and weigh up who had a budget that was fair and who didnt!!!
Can't believe your suggesting this

I think you've got the wrong end of what PS was saying. He's saying that clubs should present their budget at the start of each season, and if that budget predicts that they won't have enough income to meet their expenses then action should be taken.That's completely different from trying to tell clubs how they spend the money they actually have - it's about ensuring clubs don't spend beyond their means and risk insolvency.

There's a danger that budgets would be manipulated to say anything though, so I'm not sure how truly effective such an approach would be. Also - a 5% loss is insignificant in my view and not worthy of action, as it could easily be made-up in future years.

As for your assertion that "it's the right of a business to spend their money any way they like". It is indeed other people's business when it coems to football clubs - shareholders if they're a PLC or Ltd Company; charity commissioners, if they're a trust or charity; the judiciary, if they're acting illegally; and fans regardless of how they're legally incorporated. There are usually rules governing the spending of any business, depending on how it is structured.

Furthermore, as league football is an organisation with its own rules that clubs must agree to abide to, the FAI/League has every statutory right to tell clubs how they should spend their money. Hence it can introduce things like a wage cap.
03/07/2006, 11:03 AM
passerrby

there is nothing in licensing that ask.s about debts the only question is do you have a tax clearance cert which is no more than three months old
03/07/2006, 11:07 AM
higgins

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

I think you've got the wrong end of what PS was saying. He's saying that clubs should present their budget at the start of each season, and if that budget predicts that they won't have enough income to meet their expenses then action should be taken.That's completely different from trying to tell clubs how they spend the money they actually have - it's about ensuring clubs don't spend beyond their means and risk insolvency.

There's a danger that budgets would be manipulated to say anything though, so I'm not sure how truly effective such an approach would be. Also - a 5% loss is insignificant in my view and not worthy of action, as it could easily be made-up in future years.

Your last sentence captures what I'm trying to say. I find it unworkable and unrealistic to deduct points for a business making a 5% loss on a budget you can whip up the night before! Next of all he'll want us to give extra points for who presents the budget in the nicest folder! Maybe a prize for biggest improver :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

As for your assertion that "it's the right of a business to spend their money any way they like". It is indeed other people's business when it coems to football clubs - shareholders if they're a PLC or Ltd Company; charity commissioners, if they're a trust or charity; the judiciary, if they're acting illegally; and fans regardless of how they're legally incorporated. There are usually rules governing the spending of any business, depending on how it is structured.

Furthermore, as league football is an organisation with its own rules that clubs must agree to abide to, the FAI/League has every statutory right to tell clubs how they should spend their money. Hence it can introduce things like a wage cap.

I am saying it�s the right of the owner of the company who runs the club to spend the money they have, yes. If Bohs want to pocket the 50Million and play in Fairview Park (as long as it meets minimum standards) then its there right to go buy the worlds best player and play him for a couple of months if they want! I'm not saying reckless spending should go unpunished and certainly writing off debt is a big NO but the picture Stu likes to paint is clubs are spending money they don�t have. I presume by money they don�t have he means its money that could not be sustained over the long term. My answer to that is if they want to blow their lot in the space of a month then let them!! As long as they are carrying the debt forward and paying bills then no harm is done.

Clubs are adult enough to understand spending at a faster rate then what they take in will only lead to huge debts and a long period of nothingness where your trying to pay off the debt. If UCD don�t like to go done this route then that�s their choice but why punish other clubs who overspend for a season or two in the hope of breaking out of their division and hitting the big time.

Take Drogheda for example!
I think its great what they have done the past year or two and wish them success but they will quickly realise in a couple of years that if they don�t make any inroads in Europe that they cant spend that amount of money every season and expect to make a profit but I don�t see the harm in giving it a go for a couple of years.

UCD, looking to take the fun out of football :)
03/07/2006, 11:34 AM
dcfcsteve

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

Clubs are adult enough to understand spending at a faster rate then what they take in will only lead to huge debts and a long period of nothingness where your trying to pay off the debt. If UCD don’t like to go done this route then that’s their choice but why punish other clubs who overspend for a season or two in the hope of breaking out of their division and hitting the big time.

Take Drogheda for example!
I think its great what they have done the past year or two and wish them success but they will quickly realise in a couple of years that if they don’t make any inroads in Europe that they cant spend that amount of money every season and expect to make a profit but I don’t see the harm in giving it a go for a couple of years.

UCD, looking to take the fun out of football :)

One man's fun is another man's financial impropriety.

I'm broadly with Stu on this one (if only because the fact that we agree on something will floor him..... :D :p )

Chasing the dream is all very well, but more often than not it ends in disaster. Having clubs act like footballing versions of the mayfly - rising quickly from obscurity to glory, before withering back to obscurity a short time later - is not in the interests of the game overall. Leeds Utd tried it, and failed spectacularly. Numerous other clubs have tried it and failed as well.

The problem is that failure usually involves recourse to bankruptcy etc, which not only screws over creditors but also creates an extremely negative image of the game. We have enough of an image problem in Irish football without adding the circus of countless financial implosions to the heady mix.

Well-run businesses/football clubs may lack somehwat in glamour. They may preclude the overnight rise and fall of otherwise unfashionable teams (Drogheda ?). But they also don't distort the natural rules of competition with 'unnatural' financial behaviour, they don't creat an image of your industry as reckless, risky dangerous for outsiders to get involved in, and they don't feck off fans by seeing their teams go from glory to disaster in the blink of an eye-lid.

As for clubs beinfg adult in their attitude towards spending money !?!? There is something peculiarly intoxicating about football that makes otherwise sensible/shrewd people take thoroughly reckless financial risks - usally in pursuit of "the dream". This is truie the world over. When it comes to football, I'm afraid history has shown again and again that many individuals and clubs are incapable of acting in an "adult", prudent or sensible manner.
03/07/2006, 11:44 AM
Macy

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

One man's fun is another man's financial impropriety.

Or one man's fun is another man's reckless trading.
03/07/2006, 12:31 PM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Nightdub

Stu, when the criteria for membership of the new top division were being discussed, you and other UCD fans were very vociferous about a club's League standing being determined solely by playing criteria - i.e. that on- and off-the-field issues should be kept separate. Now you're saying that a club's League standing (i.e. the number of points it has) should be subject to non-playing criteria e.g. tax compliance.

Which is it to be?

In fairness Doc, he's never said off the field points shouldn't be taken into it. He's always said if clubs achieve the club license, it should then be down to on the field performance. Set minimum standards and those that don't reach them shouldn't be allowed in. I agree with him 100% BTW.

Exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by passerrby

there is nothing in licensing that asks about debts the only question is do you have a tax clearance cert which is no more than three months old

Wrong. Section 9 deals with finances and notes that no club may have outstanding wages or PRSI unless there's some sort of agreement in place or there's a form of arbitration in place. This, it would appear, means that having a winding-up petition against you is OK under Licencing. Which, of course, makes a mockery of the whole thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

I'm broadly with Stu on this one (if only because the fact that we agree on something will floor him..... )

Damn you Steve!!! Now I'm all confused! I can't disagree with both you and higgins now!:D
03/07/2006, 1:17 PM
pete

The only place UCD will win anything is on the Balance Sheets :D

CCFC has been conservatively run in recent years with no massive gambles in expenditure to win titles which implies that if we owe money then must be a lot more clubs that owe the Revemue money.

Whats clubs owe money to the Revenue & what clubs definitely don't?

:confused:
03/07/2006, 1:18 PM
Dodge

Pats do. have had a repayment plan for the last 18 months or so and haven't defaulted once.
03/07/2006, 1:21 PM
Schumi

Everyone owes money to the Revenue (except Rovers probably), it's just a matter of who's keeping to their scheduled payments I think.
03/07/2006, 1:22 PM
pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schumi

Everyone owes money to the Revenue (except Rovers probably), it's just a matter of who's keeping to their scheduled payments I think.

I think its odds on another clubs will be in the news about this later in the season so.
03/07/2006, 1:27 PM
Macy

The Revenue Auditors are doing the rounds of clubs at the moment. The Rovers case exposed all the dubious expense payments that have been going on in the league, hence the audit of all clubs. It's likely that all clubs will be hit with a tax bill, unless they're clubs that have recently been in the sh�te like Rovers. Again, it's back to the net pay contracts.

However, a winding up notice will only be issued if payment has been missed or if a club hasn't come to a repayment schedule with the revenue.
03/07/2006, 1:31 PM
soccerc

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

I think its odds on another clubs will be in the news about this later in the season so.

I'd imagine sooner than that :rolleyes:
05/07/2006, 9:06 PM
CollegeTillIDie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peadar

The UCD heads think they're right clever boyos going on about football clubs just because they're not a club. I suppose they're praying a few of the top clubs go out of business so that they have a chance of being allowed into the new Premiership.

No peadar because of all ye feckers go to the wall we won't have anyone to play against :D
06/07/2006, 12:55 PM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

Whats clubs owe money to the Revenue & what clubs definitely don't?

:confused:

Everyone owes money to Revenue. Some clubs only owe current amounts; some owe more than that.

You can get figures from club accounts - will post when I get home if I remember. It varies from big amounts like Bohs, Pat's, Cork and Dublin City (mentioned on this thread earlier), to smaller amounts of about E20,000 to E30,000 for Bray, Kilkenny, Drogheda (I think) and a couple of others.

This looks like it'll definitely be back in the news - Revenue have been talking to all clubs with a view to sorting out exactly where things are with everyone (I'd tell you what we owed before it was paid, but I wouldn't want to embarrass the "conservatively run" clubs :)).
06/07/2006, 2:14 PM
NY Hoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Everyone owes money to Revenue. Some clubs only owe current amounts; some owe more than that.

You can get figures from club accounts - will post when I get home if I remember. It varies from big amounts like Bohs, Pat's, Cork and Dublin City (mentioned on this thread earlier), to smaller amounts of about E20,000 to E30,000 for Bray, Kilkenny, Drogheda (I think) and a couple of others.

This looks like it'll definitely be back in the news - Revenue have been talking to all clubs with a view to sorting out exactly where things are with everyone (I'd tell you what we owed before it was paid, but I wouldn't want to embarrass the "conservatively run" clubs :)).

Not everyone:D

For the first time in our history everything is transparent and done properly.

KOH
06/07/2006, 8:30 PM
pineapple stu

Your P30s are paid on the last day of the month every month?

Here's that summary I promised...

Code:

Owed to Club Year-end Revenue Bohemians 30-Nov-05 462,629 Bray Wanderers 30-Sep-05 15,000 Cork City 31-Dec-04 141,559 Drogheda United 31-Dec-04 30,588 Dublin City 30-Sep-04 70,528 Galway United 31-Oct-05 36,040 Kilkenny City 31-Oct-04 1,935 St Pat's Ath 30-Jun-05 228,762 Shamrock Rovers 31-Oct-05 15,018 Waterford Untd 31-Oct-04 61,013
06/07/2006, 9:48 PM
Battery Rover

Are these the only teams that owe money or the only ones that have been audited?

Where does this info come from?
07/07/2006, 12:18 AM
A face

Quote:

Originally Posted by Battery Rover

Are these the only teams that owe money or the only ones that have been audited?

Where does this info come from?

What he said !!
07/07/2006, 2:05 AM
Dr.Nightdub

Stu, your figures regarding Pats are way out of date. We paid them a six-figure sum in order to get the tax clearance cert for this season's UEFA licence, what's left owing is considerably under �100k and we've agreed a repayment schedule of either 5 or 6 years - genuinely can't remember which, either way it's less than �2k a month.
07/07/2006, 9:17 AM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Battery Rover

Are these the only teams that owe money or the only ones that have been audited?

Where does this info come from?

Apologies - only clubs incorporated as companies are included. The others aren't incorporated (except Kildare, whose accounts don't disclose Revenue liabilities) and Derry (cos I haven't gotten around to looking for them).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Nightdub

Stu, your figures regarding Pats are way out of date.

They're dated when they're dated. Maybe they've come down since then, but the figures above are per the last audited accounts.
07/07/2006, 9:41 AM
Dodge

At one stage I think ours was above 500K... As Nightdub said we're closer to 50K than 100K now

Good work though stu
07/07/2006, 9:53 AM
dahamsta

Nice bit of research there stu.

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

All times are GMT. The time now is 9:58 PM.