• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Cockle43

Manager⭐
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
1,181
Location
(Was) Back home on the North Bank now back in W.
Interesting little article in the Sunday Telegraph Business Section today.

According to HMRC, in April 2010 they were owed a total of £21.7 million by football clubs, £14.3 million by Premier League clubs alone. It also goes on to say that they are now being far more robust in chasing the debts as they regard that some clubs are deliberately trying to permanently avoid paying but they will make allowances for clubs in genuine difficulty.

Interesting to see that we are far from being alone but I would love to know whether they regard us as one of those trying to permanently avoid paying or not in genuine financial difficulty......
 

Firestorm

Pedant
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
15,213
Location
Immersed in the accounts
I would imagine that the "permanently avoid" category would be those the HMRC consider close to administration and would be likely to pay a small amount were there to be adminisstration and the subsequent CVA.
Its these Clubs (ie Leeds) which have hardened the HMRC stance and brought about the prompt actions we are seeing these days.

I reckon that the word permanently has been misued and that they actually mean consistently, and that will include us
 

chadded

Not striking since 2004
Joined
Oct 24, 2003
Messages
5,896
Location
Portsmouth
Interesting to see that we are far from being alone but I would love to know whether they regard us as one of those trying to permanently avoid paying or not in genuine financial difficulty......

I'd say we fall into the former because we are the latter.
 

bazzashrimper

Director
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
2,641
Location
Billericay
Looking at the Accounts to 2009 - the amount owed to the tax man increased from £800k to £1.8m - in that year. Maybe they would have been happy giving us an £800k float, but we chose to take the P and they clamped down - rightly so too.
 

Firestorm

Pedant
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
15,213
Location
Immersed in the accounts
Looking at the Accounts to 2009 - the amount owed to the tax man increased from £800k to £1.8m - in that year. Maybe they would have been happy giving us an £800k float, but we chose to take the P and they clamped down - rightly so too.

That would have been the amount outstanding at 31/7/2009, certainly looks like we were racking up the debt , rather than paying it off. The cash flow problems in the 20 months since the accounts which meant regular late payments certainly kept HMRC on our backs.
 

bazzashrimper

Director
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
2,641
Location
Billericay
That would have been the amount outstanding at 31/7/2009, certainly looks like we were racking up the debt , rather than paying it off. The cash flow problems in the 20 months since the accounts which meant regular late payments certainly kept HMRC on our backs.

Yep - I agree, in that year the Bank loans / OD's also increased massively - but for some reason the debt to the parent company reduced by £500k. Any idea FS whether this is the ground rent which is never charged for?
 

Firestorm

Pedant
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
15,213
Location
Immersed in the accounts
Yep - I agree, in that year the Bank loans / OD's also increased massively - but for some reason the debt to the parent company reduced by £500k. Any idea FS whether this is the ground rent which is never charged for?

I don't think so as the notes to the accounts do say that it was not charged

Related party transactions: South eastern Leisure
....The company leases the training ground from SEL and RH from SEL Co (see my previous post in aother thread about property and seperate companies) rent is charged amounting to Nil (2008 Nil) .

At the time the accounts were first published I speculated that MD were having cash issues and SUFC borrowed some money from a third party in order to repay a bit of the money that they owed to MD .

This could well be construed as RM taking money out of the club, as I would imagine it was used to prop up MD and could well have been used for Salaries....but that is really speculation and anyway its just a case of SUFC paying their debts, something a number on here have been saying we should be doing, regardless of who its owed to.

I really hope that this repayment of parent company debt did not occur to any great degree in 09/10 as it would insinuate that paying MD/SEL/RHL was perferential to paying HMRC /Tilly/The players.

Mind you the accounts would not shed too much light on that as the HMRC/Players non payment occured in the 2nd HY of the accounts and should there be any repayment that may well of occured in the early part of the year before the cash flow problems manifested themselves, the actual timings are not reported in the accounts. (although it would point to poor budgeting)
 
Last edited:

Wise Head

Youth Team⭐
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
252
I don't think so as the notes to the accounts do say that it was not charged

Related party transactions: South eastern Leisure
....The company leases the training ground from SEL and RH from SEL Co (see my previous post in aother thread about property and seperate companies) rent is charged amounting to Nil (2008 Nil) .

At the time the accounts were first published I speculated that MD were having cash issues and SUFC borrowed some money from a third party in order to repay a bit of the money that they owed to MD .

This could well be construed as RM taking money out of the club, as I would imagine it was used to prop up MD and could well have been used for Salaries....but that is really speculation and anyway its just a case of SUFC paying their debts, something a number on here have been saying we should be doing, regardless of who its owed to.

I really hope that this repayment of parent company debt did not occur to any great degree in 09/10 as it would insinuate that paying MD/SEL/RHL was perferential to paying HMRC /Tilly/The players.

Mind you the accounts would not shed too much light on that as the HMRC/Players non payment occured in the 2nd HY of the accounts and should there be any repayment that may well of occured in the early part of the year before the cash flow problems manifested themselves, the actual timings are not reported in the accounts. (although it would point to poor budgeting)
Basically we haven't got a clue what went on or is currently going on. If I owned shares in SUFC, which I don't, I wouldn't be too happy with the transparency of any of this. It seems RM can take money in & out of the club at his own discretion.
 

Cricko

Zone Owner ⭐
Staff member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
31,861
Location
Leigh-On-Sea
Basically we haven't got a clue what went on or is currently going on. If I owned shares in SUFC, which I don't, I wouldn't be too happy with the transparency of any of this. It seems RM can take money in & out of the club at his own discretion.

IMO he always has done....why set up a company to charge rent on the ground knowing full well you were not going to get it...no doubt it looked good on paper...who is our parent company at the moment and if (as it looks) we are helping MD out with cash when we can hardly stay afloat ourselves,why is there not more transparency between all these companies if there is nothing to hide.

At least the shareholders deserve to know the full facts but will no doubt be told once more that we are all to thick to understand the complexity of it all.

The trouble is he owns the majority of the shares and does what he likes , hence the fact so many directors have left the board.
 

Wise Head

Youth Team⭐
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
252
IMO he always has done....why set up a company to charge rent on the ground knowing full well you were not going to get it...no doubt it looked good on paper...who is our parent company at the moment and if (as it looks) we are helping MD out with cash when we can hardly stay afloat ourselves,why is there not more transparency between all these companies if there is nothing to hide.

At least the shareholders deserve to know the full facts but will no doubt be told once more that we are all to thick to understand the complexity of it all.

The trouble is he owns the majority of the shares and does what he likes , hence the fact so many directors have left the board.
Totally agree. I remember getting the share prospectus through a few years ago and was quite excited as the previous two years showed a small profit and we were moving to a new stadium. I thought the share issue was to pay for part of the new ground. I lost interest very quickly when it didn't state anywhere that the club would own the new ground (which we have now had confirmed they won't). In the brochure there was no mention that I can recall that there would be significant money transfers between the company and his own fully owned companies.
Whilst what he is doing I'm sure is legal, I wouldn't be too sure that some of the transfers of money out of SUFC to his other companies weren't to the detriment of SUFC (particularly if it meant we couldn't pay the players & staff on time or HMRC before they served us with winding up orders.
 
Top