Footballing Debts

[Gaz92 966]

First off, there is of course the debate as to whether we should be paying any debts from the oldco. We had to start again in the Third Division, having lost 20 to 30 million worth of talent. Is this not punishment enough? I do understand the idea of trying to get rid of some of the debts, but I agree with Green approaching UEFA to try and strike a deal about it. As he said on SSN, the line has to be drawn, we can't be the same company when it suits people, then a completely new entity when it suits them.

What I don't understand, is the importance of footballing debts. We owed money to three main different areas: HMRC, other clubs and businesses. Why is it the rule in England - and perhaps something we will need to face in our own situation - that footballing debts are the most important? Why should they come before paying off our taxes? And even more pressingly, why should they come before debt to small businesses?

I know the RFFF done a valiant job of paying back just about all small businesses that approached them about what they were owed from the oldco, but if there hadn't been such an organisation, I'm pretty sure footballing debts would still have taken precedent over these debts. I don't remember exact facts, but was there not a story about someone we owed £2,000 to who was close to going out of business because of it? Why should that be behind a few hundred thousand that are owed to the likes of Arsenal and Chelsea?

So can anyone enlighten me on this? As I said I am for paying off a reasonable amount of debt, I'm just struggling to understand why debts to clubs who turnover millions of pounds is seen as priority over businesses who rely on the money for their livelihood?

[legalbeagle 3,734]

First off, there is of course the debate as to whether we should be paying any debts from the oldco. We had to start again in the Third Division, having lost 20 to 30 million worth of talent. Is this not punishment enough? I do understand the idea of trying to get rid of some of the debts, but I agree with Green approaching UEFA to try and strike a deal about it. As he said on SSN, the line has to be drawn, we can't be the same company when it suits people, then a completely new entity when it suits them.

What I don't understand, is the importance of footballing debts. We owed money to three main different areas: HMRC, other clubs and businesses. Why is it the rule in England - and perhaps something we will need to face in our own situation - that footballing debts are the most important? Why should they come before paying off our taxes? And even more pressingly, why should they come before debt to small businesses?

I know the RFFF done a valiant job of paying back just about all small businesses that approached them about what they were owed from the oldco, but if there hadn't been such an organisation, I'm pretty sure footballing debts would still have taken precedent over these debts. I don't remember exact facts, but was there not a story about someone we owed £2,000 to who was close to going out of business because of it? Why should that be behind a few hundred thousand that are owed to the likes of Arsenal and Chelsea?

So can anyone enlighten me on this? As I said I am for paying off a reasonable amount of debt, I'm just struggling to understand why debts to clubs who turnover millions of pounds is seen as priority over businesses who rely on the money for their livelihood?

From a legal perspective, all of the debts lie with the oldco, and therefore we have no legal obligations to pay anything, the issue is that we need the support of clubs and associations to be able to transfer our registration, and to allow the club to continue to operate, and therefore, they effectively are asking us to volunteer to pay off these debts.

The football creditors rule in England is slightly different, as it does legally require football debts to be put to the front of the queue in administration situations.

It would seem reasonable that we talk to the clubs that are owed the money, and try to come to some arrangement over repaying it over a period of time, or even at a reduced rate, rather than them risking getting nothing.

I think that this is a price worth paying for the membership transfer, and to regain some sort of reputation within the football world.

[JCDBigBear 10,831]

From a legal perspective, all of the debts lie with the oldco, and therefore we have no legal obligations to pay anything, the issue is that we need the support of clubs and associations to be able to transfer our registration, and to allow the club to continue to operate, and therefore, they effectively are asking us to volunteer to pay off these debts.

The football creditors rule in England is slightly different, as it does legally require football debts to be put to the front of the queue in administration situations.

It would seem reasonable that we talk to the clubs that are owed the money, and try to come to some arrangement over repaying it over a period of time, or even at a reduced rate, rather than them risking getting nothing.

I think that this is a price worth paying for the membership transfer, and to regain some sort of reputation within the football world.

You are absolutely correct with your first two paragraphs. I also agree that we try to negotiate a reduction or new repayment plan spread over a certain period of time. The sticking point for us will be if the clubs involved don't play ball (no pun intended). We simply must reach agreement if we wish to play in Europe again.

[A.T.G 10,773]

Cause the SFA specialise in Blackmail

[trueblue72 8]

It's about our honour mainly as a club. Not just about the legal situation.

The tax debts and ticketus are obviously too big to do anything about.

But the football debts and those to some of the smaller creditors are manageable, especially if spread out over a few years.

I think it is the right thing to do, even to some of the clubs who plainly don't deserve it.

One day we will be back at the top, and I would rather our history showed that we

paid off whatever debts we could - even if we didn't have to, even if it hurt us ..

Because we are better than that.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,678]

the football creditors rule was likely set up because one small club went bust owing another small club a decent level of money from player transfers

it was never envisaged that a big club like ourselves would default on payments to other big clubs, i wouldn't be surprised if arsenal and Chelsea have already told us to simply forget it. As for the likes of rapid Vienna, they should get their money as everton are still going to pay our oldco the money which goes towards our creditors

[docspiderman 1,243]

All for paying footballing debts as long as the footballing debts owed to the Oldco are paid to the Newco; it has got to work both ways.

[nelsonRFC82 305]

Did Motherwell, Livingston, Dundee (twice) settle their football debts and if not what "sporting integrity" is there in two of said clubs playing in the SPL?

[Bothwellbear 1,392]

I would much rather we payed our debts. It's the honourable thing to do and will help to mend the Jack of trust that we have at the moment.

[Peasie 103]

All for paying footballing debts as long as the footballing debts owed to the Oldco are paid to the Newco; it has got to work both ways.

Where does the money go though?

What was agreed when the club was bought?

Would the Liquidators have something to say about it?

I can see the money going to the plc.

[Gaz92 966]

I would much rather we payed our debts. It's the honourable thing to do and will help to mend the Jack of trust that we have at the moment.

PAYE debts as well?

[Gitch 364]

All for paying footballing debts as long as the footballing debts owed to the Oldco are paid to the Newco; it has got to work both ways.

This is a good point.

I'd rather we pay the football debts, mainly so any clubs that we try to deal with in the future can be assured that they will definitely get their cash and we don't have cunts like Hearts refusing to do any transfer business.

[legalbeagle 3,734]

The problem is that the footballing debts owed to us would be owed to the oldco, and be assets to be liquidated to pay creditors. We have no legal obligation to pay the debts that the oldco owed, but coming to an arrangement is a key step for us regaining our stature in the future.

I do have serious concerns in the case of Hearts, who despite knowing our financial trouble, decided to accept a deal for Lee Wallace that involved staged payments over an extended period, maybe they don't deserve to be paid just for stupidity.

[Bad Robot 21,374]

All for paying footballing debts as long as the footballing debts owed to the Oldco are paid to the Newco; it has got to work both ways.

well that's not going to happen and doesnt, which is a pity as the oldco is owed more than what the newco is owed out.

I think that all footballing debts must be paid as its a footballing clubs lifeblood and our reputation is tarnished in scotland and we dont want it tarniished accross europe aswell.

some of the clubs we owe will get a very small percentage of what we owe them from the creditors pot and we should make up the shortfall. I don't agree that we should be making representations to eufa on this, I think that's embarrassing.

[AGM_72 3,681]

All for paying footballing debts as long as the footballing debts owed to the Oldco are paid to the Newco; it has got to work both ways.