Page 1 of 1

Small club lose again

Posted: 09 Sep 2010, 13:15
by Dave
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-de ... e-11231856

IIkeston town,were wound up yesterday for oweing the inland revenue just 50k,i do understand the point that if a football club live's beyond its means and owe's money that the football club can not pay back,then this is what can happen.

However how is it,that a club can be allowed to continue trading whilst oweing millions,and a very small club is wound up for what some players earn in 45 minutes of football.

To me there really is something wrong about this,there also has seemed to be one rule for big's and another for small club's,within english football,for as long as i can remember.

however about time that changed.

Re: Small club lose again

Posted: 09 Sep 2010, 14:36
by happytorq
It's all about scale. If you owe 50k but your annual income is only 50k, that's a far riskier proposition than a club owing 2 million with yearly revenues of 10 million. HRMC will take that into account. A club can continue to trade and service debts if there is sufficient revenue coming in. That obviously isn't the case with Ilkeston (the judge said that they were "clearly insolvent"). It's a shame, but it's fairly straghtforward accounting practices. Sure, Man Utd have debts of £800M, but they are paying the interest on that debt so they are ok (at least, in the short term).

Plus, you have to remember, this is a tax debt. Why should they be let off paying money they owe to the public? Most debts that clubs have are to banks and not the Treasury.

P.S. You made my eye's bleed with your abu'se of the poor innocent apo'strophe ;-)

Re: Small club lose again

Posted: 10 Sep 2010, 21:29
by Dave
happytorq wrote:It's all about scale. If you owe 50k but your annual income is only 50k, that's a far riskier proposition than a club owing 2 million with yearly revenues of 10 million. HRMC will take that into account. A club can continue to trade and service debts if there is sufficient revenue coming in. That obviously isn't the case with Ilkeston (the judge said that they were "clearly insolvent"). It's a shame, but it's fairly straghtforward accounting practices. Sure, Man Utd have debts of £800M, but they are paying the interest on that debt so they are ok (at least, in the short term).

Plus, you have to remember, this is a tax debt. Why should they be let off paying money they owe to the public? Most debts that clubs have are to banks and not the Treasury.

P.S. You made my eye's bleed with your abu'se of the poor innocent apo'strophe ;-)


sorry mate,did say i was trying,will work out 1 day were to put the ashtropee's :)