Revenue After Shels Again

Printable View

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

14/08/2006, 12:48 PM
paudie

Quote:

Originally Posted by bohs til i die

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.

That's what I thought too.

Aren't Shels likely to be in Santry next season?
14/08/2006, 12:48 PM
pineapple stu

paudie - You would then monitor the DDs and ensure they are adequate, increasing them if necessary.

You also wouldn't leave historic debt there - you'd settle it with your annual P35.

Bottom line - Cork's method of paying their tax was a disgrace and their attempt to fob it off on their accountants even more. Ultimately, the accountants advise the company, but the directors are responsible. And it's responsibility which Lennox was trying to drop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paudie

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.

This, unfortunately, is too simplistic. First off, if you pay monthly by DD, you only make one PAYE return, which is your P35, filed in February after the year end. Second off, it doesn't explain why there was historical debt going back three and more years. Third off, the tax charge would be roughly the same each month; even less in December if there are players on contract just for the season. So if the December payment was well low, the others would have been far lower. WHich would have given the club time to spot that something was wrong and to sort it.
14/08/2006, 12:56 PM
chippie0001

Lads,

The bottom line is the revenue do not seek to wind up a company for underpaying a DD etc. They do so when repeated attempts to solve the matter have failed. If is usually the revenue's last course of action as if the company is wound up they won't get all their money so it is not in their interests.

The Shels one again baffles me, love to know how they owe money again only 3/4 months later. Obviously Ollie goes for any pr is better than no pr.
14/08/2006, 12:57 PM
paudie

City would be far from the first business I've come across to try and use the Revenue a method of financing ie put off paying them as long as you can get away with it.

If you're lucky you can get away with it for a while but EL clubs have been targetted by the Revenue since Rovers went under so City got caught big time this year.

Not saying its right but this stuff happens in business. Hopefully City, having got their fingers burned, will cop on in the future.
14/08/2006, 12:57 PM
bad mongo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stato

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.

Stato you're arriving very late to this debate. Good insights but suffice to say the Shels' well is down to its last dribbles of muddy water, there is nothing thirstier than a megalomaniacal convict with squanderlust.
14/08/2006, 12:58 PM
Dodge

It'd be a Standing Order, not a direct debit as a DD would be set up Revenue (on this case) and they would decide how much was to come out. if you pay any bill by DD they take the whole amount out. I'm not sure but I doubt Revenue would accept to be paid by Standing Order.
14/08/2006, 1:00 PM
pineapple stu

It's called a DD by Revenue on their forms I think, but it is a set amount each month. Set by the company.
14/08/2006, 1:12 PM
green-blood

"EL clubs have been targetted by the Revenue since Rovers went under"

just for the record Branvard the company trading as SRFC never "went under"
14/08/2006, 1:35 PM
Dodge

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

It's called a DD by Revenue on their forms I think, but it is a set amount each month. Set by the company.

Which is exactly what a standing order is...
14/08/2006, 1:55 PM
pete

Bohs are selling a capital asset of high value to build a cheaper replacement. Shels are effectively selling parts of the vlaue of their Tolka Park lease to pay for day to day running costs - this is a stupid way to run any business. At the rate Shels are going they will have feck all left from sale of the lease when they eventually leave Tolka. I believe estimates of value of the lease are around 5m to maximum of 10m. Running an annual lose of 1m will eat into this very quickly.

Clubs with fulltime players will always have larger tax bills whereas clubs with part-time players probably pay no employer PRSI or employee PAYE so less likely to get into trouble.
14/08/2006, 2:01 PM
bohs til i die

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

Bohs are selling a capital asset of high value to build a cheaper replacement. Shels are effectively selling parts of the vlaue of their Tolka Park lease to pay for day to day running costs - this is a stupid way to run any business. At the rate Shels are going they will have feck all left from sale of the lease when they eventually leave Tolka. I believe estimates of value of the lease are around 5m to maximum of 10m. Running an annual lose of 1m will eat into this very quickly.

Clubs with fulltime players will always have larger tax bills whereas clubs with part-time players probably pay no employer PRSI or employee PAYE so less likely to get into trouble.

Bohs are selling a crumbling wreck of an asset to build something modern, It is also a way of raising cash to set up proper infrastrucxture and revenue streams. Its not ideal but if done right it will be a very good move.

Drogheda are selling up as well and Harps are moving soon. Athlone are in the process of building a new ground as well arent they?
14/08/2006, 2:02 PM
wws

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

Which is exactly what a standing order is...

the diff between em is that YOU control your standing order amounts
a DD is a mandate to a third party to take money out of your a/c
they can change the amounts to pay the bill, sometimes with notice dependin on the terms

you couldnt pay an esb bill with an SO as its always differeing amounts so u set up a DD
14/08/2006, 2:02 PM
Dodge

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

Clubs with fulltime players will always have larger tax bills whereas clubs with part-time players probably pay no employer PRSI or employee PAYE so less likely to get into trouble.

Not neccesarily true. Full time players will have tax credits etc and of course the majority of the pay (on most players) will be at 20%, where as all part time players will be 40% rate with no tax credits to speak of
14/08/2006, 2:27 PM
manic da hoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by bohs til i die

Bohs are selling a crumbling wreck of an asset to build something modern, It is also a way of raising cash to set up proper infrastrucxture and revenue streams. Its not ideal but if done right it will be a very good move.

That site earmarked for Bohs over by the West Link will never have a stadium built on it.
14/08/2006, 5:05 PM
bad mongo

Quote:

Originally Posted by manic da hoop

That site earmarked for Bohs over by the West Link will never have a stadium built on it.

I wouldn't disagree. There will be twists and turns re: Bohs relocation yet.
14/08/2006, 5:06 PM
bad mongo

Was just thumbing through a copy of Finbar Flood's autobiography in Waterstones. There is a passage in it where he claims to have secured the rezoning of Tolka for the precise purpose of raising funds to build/develop a stadium for Shels at another location and all cash raised from this sale is supposed to be held in trust and used for that purpose only
14/08/2006, 5:23 PM
Stato

Quote:

Originally Posted by bad mongo

Stato you're arriving very late to this debate. Good insights but suffice to say the Shels' well is down to its last dribbles of muddy water

Not true, their lease could potentially be worth �10m to �12m (bear in mind that any developer is going to try to get as many units on it as possible and each extra unit is extra money for Shels). Even if they've eaten into about �2.5m over the last couple of years they've still a large chunk to eat into before it's all gone (bear in mind too that Ollie is looking for a cheap option on a ground, think it was �5m for 49% of Dalymount, also looked at renting Tallaght apparently).

You've also got to bear in mind that the lowest tv money payment to any club in the Champions League in 2004 was �2m, not to mention the extra gate receipts that would be generated. That's a big carrot to aim for.

Again, I'm not suggesting it's the right thing to do, it's the Russian Roulette gamble. There's no room for failure but they have a few years left to try to achieve it.
14/08/2006, 5:27 PM
Poor Student

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stato

Again, I'm not suggesting it's the right thing to do, it's the Russian Roulette gamble. There's no room for failure but they have a few years left to try to achieve it.

To suggest it's Russian Roulette with one empty chamber doesn't do the narrowness of the odds any justice.
14/08/2006, 5:33 PM
bad mongo

It's been covered in a thread here before Stato. The high density apartment bonanza is not on the cards. Tolka Pk. is part of an integrated plan for the whole Richmond Road area and there will be considerable parkland and cycle/pedestrian access planned. No doubt some residential development will traverse the Tolka Park floodplain on stilts though. A Shels boswell put up a copy of the city manager's report previously on this board. Considering their debts and other individuals due a piece of the lease pie Shels will be leaving Tolka with enough cash to pay their wage bill for another 2 seasons, after that it's hail mary all the way to windswept Morton.
14/08/2006, 5:43 PM
WeAreRovers

Stato - You're theories are all fine and dandy except for one small thing, Ossie Kilkenny and his fellow developers already have a charge over Tolka.

In other words, one phone call from Ossie to Ollie and Shels are out on there ears immediately.

Ollie has already received a huge chunk of cash from Kilkenny and co. (who paid off the last �300,000 owed to the Revenue?) and won't be leaving Tolka with anything like the figures you suggest.

KOH

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