Jump to content

Walking Down The Halbeath Road


Recommended Posts

Agreed. I seem to recall that the 'dodgy' element of the Dundee CVA was that they included ground rent as a debt when it fact the chap who owned Dens Park (a Dundee United Director if I recall correctly) did not charge rent!!

You say that as though the administrator had a choice. Soft loans, hard loans, bank loans, trade debts - they are all debts and all have to be included by the insolvency practitioner. That's what the law says. The only way Melville's money could have gone in in such a way as to be at the back of the queue would be if it had gone in as share capital and why would he do that. As it happens, how he did it perhaps saved the company by enabling the CVA to be voted through. The same might apply to Dunfermline!

Edited by Mabawsa_Ritchie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. I seem to recall that the 'dodgy' element of the Dundee CVA was that they included ground rent as a debt when it fact the chap who owned Dens Park (a Dundee United Director if I recall correctly) did not charge rent!!

I thought they included something like 20 years of future rent in the debt figure on the basis that Dens is designated for sporting use only and so the land would become worthless without them since there are no homeless teams in the Dundee area looking to rent a stadium. Or something like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. I seem to recall that the 'dodgy' element of the Dundee CVA was that they included ground rent as a debt when it fact the chap who owned Dens Park (a Dundee United Director if I recall correctly) did not charge rent!!

You are probably right - I don't recall. One of the issues in solvency is that most long term contracts like a leasing agreement have termination clauses in them in the event of insolvency. In certain circumstances, a landlord 5 years into a twenty year lease can terminate the lease and claim he is a creditor for anything unpaid re the whole twenty years. To most people that sounds grossly unfair but the law permits it and there is not much an IP can do with it and in any event, in this instance, it helped the IP get the CVA through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW Dundee are currently paying off all of their football debt at £13,000 per month.

Thats something that bugs me. I see no reason why owing money to the likes of another club or the SFA should get a preference over the other creditors. Why is the caterer or the police or the stewarding company not paid but whoever FC is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats something that bugs me. I see no reason why owing money to the likes of another club or the SFA should get a preference over the other creditors. Why is the caterer or the police or the stewarding company not paid but whoever FC is?

Because it is a condition of being allowed to continue to trade as a licensed football club and without that licence there is no viable business to rescue.

For me it's not unreasonable. It's not fair to the other creditors of course but that's something you have to be conscious of when you do business with a football club I guess. The responsibility of the League and FA is to protect the position of ALL its members. If it allowed one not to meet its responsibilities to another member but still carry on in membership it would have a revolt on its hands. And rightly so.

It may one day be ruled illegal to enforce such a rule. When that day comes then it will be much more difficult to rescue football clubs because continuing membership of whatever league they are in is not likely to be waved through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it is a condition of being allowed to continue to trade as a licensed football club and without that licence there is no viable business to rescue.

For me it's not unreasonable. It's not fair to the other creditors of course but that's something you have to be conscious of when you do business with a football club I guess. The responsibility of the League and FA is to protect the position of ALL its members. If it allowed one not to meet its responsibilities to another member but still carry on in membership it would have a revolt on its hands. And rightly so.

It may one day be ruled illegal to enforce such a rule. When that day comes then it will be much more difficult to rescue football clubs because continuing membership of whatever league they are in is not likely to be waved through.

I come from a position that all creditors should be treated equally if there is insufficient money to pay in full. That's the essential premise of insolvency law and should be especially true where there is a newco situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may one day be ruled illegal to enforce such a rule. When that day comes then it will be much more difficult to rescue football clubs because continuing membership of whatever league they are in is not likely to be waved through.

HMRC challanged that rule last year

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/news/9290081/Football-creditors-rule-declared-lawful-in-High-Court-meaning-players-can-still-pick-up-bumper-pay-packets.html

and lost

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I come from a position that all creditors should be treated equally if there is insufficient money to pay in full. That's the essential premise of insolvency law and should be especially true where there is a newco situation.

I know where you are coming from and I acknowledge that is the fair approach but the fact remains that if we go down that road clubs will not be allowed to continue in league membership and there will as a result be no business to save. It will end up being counter-productive for the insolvency profession as football clubs would just become impossible to rescue save in rare situations where there actually was no significant football debt.

I know that. But it doesn't mean the law may not change in the future. For all the reasons tonsilitis gives, there is some merit in the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the historical tax bill has now been paid, following a further loan from Masterton. Emphasis on the words 'loan' and 'historical'. Is there not another tax bill due shortly? Looks like a case of shifting debt.

Edit: I'm an idiot. Read an article posted by the TPC twitter from January. That TPC twitter feed is a nightmare.

Edited by Kyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another quick reminder to Pars fans that this Sunday at EEP is the SFA Youth Cup Semi Final between DAFC and St Mirren. Let's get along to it and cheer the boys on to Hampden! :)

Think we're heading through to this. Details of kick off time/entry prices?

I want another trip to Hampden, so i hope we hump you :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think we're heading through to this. Details of kick off time/entry prices?

I want another trip to Hampden, so i hope we hump you :)

1pm Kick Off. £2 admission. I'm sure if St Mirren even bring a fraction of what they took to Hampden yesterday, to EEP this Sunday, we'll all be happy lol! ;)

P.S Well done on your victory yesterday! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know where you are coming from and I acknowledge that is the fair approach but the fact remains that if we go down that road clubs will not be allowed to continue in league membership and there will as a result be no business to save. It will end up being counter-productive for the insolvency profession as football clubs would just become impossible to rescue save in rare situations where there actually was no significant football debt.

I know that. But it doesn't mean the law may not change in the future. For all the reasons tonsilitis gives, there is some merit in the argument.

Actually, I take the opposite view! From am insolvency practitioner's point of view the whole "football debt" thing makes it harder to rescue clubs, not the other way round. I can see that there is an argument that the SFA/League feel the need to protect themselves but if say Dunfermline cannot find an investor willing to pick up the debts due to Raith, Falkirk, Cowdenbeath and others and the authorities therefore prevent the club from rejoining the league then the football debt will be lost anyway.

Putting aside the whole the thing regarding cheating re having players they can't afford, the facts are that Dunfermline are a big club and they bring more to Scottish football than the likes of Cove Rangers. They are big enough with a big enough support to re-establish themselves as at least a break even club. Repeat offenders maybe need a different approach, I accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I take the opposite view! From am insolvency practitioner's point of view the whole "football debt" thing makes it harder to rescue clubs, not the other way round. I can see that there is an argument that the SFA/League feel the need to protect themselves but if say Dunfermline cannot find an investor willing to pick up the debts due to Raith, Falkirk, Cowdenbeath and others and the authorities therefore prevent the club from rejoining the league then the football debt will be lost anyway.

Putting aside the whole the thing regarding cheating re having players they can't afford, the facts are that Dunfermline are a big club and they bring more to Scottish football than the likes of Cove Rangers. They are big enough with a big enough support to re-establish themselves as at least a break even club. Repeat offenders maybe need a different approach, I accept.[/quote)

Sounds a bit like the Rangers argument !!!!!!! The size of support has got nothing to do with anything. There are clubs with a tiny fraction of Dunfermline's support who manage to stay in the black. It's all about not spending what you don't have. Unfortunately there is a culture in football by certain clubs who justify debt in the belief that they are a big club and deserve to operate at the highest level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They way the TPC have handled themselves since they walked away make me think they were looking for liquidation as a way of getting hold of the club (or at least its assets). The way they jumped back to life after the SG announcement on Saturday make me think they wern't expecting it and are now backtracking to stay in the game. We have to back anyone looking to save the Pars in its current state and not be distracted by this lot. Newco is not an option for me, nor should it be for any Pars fans while the club remains alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They way the TPC have handled themselves since they walked away make me think they were looking for liquidation as a way of getting hold of the club (or at least its assets). The way they jumped back to life after the SG announcement on Saturday make me think they wern't expecting it and are now backtracking to stay in the game. We have to back anyone looking to save the Pars in its current state and not be distracted by this lot. Newco is not an option for me, nor should it be for any Pars fans while the club remains alive.

Agreed, the whole "lipstick on a pig" argument being peddled on the Parsalive forum is getting really tiresome & their twitter feed is an absolute embarrassment.

Fact is we all put faith in the TPC scheme & it got us nowhere in the end. They had their chance & for whatever reason it didn't happen.

Edited by da_no_1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...