This Preston situation

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Call me naive. Preston are one of a string of clubs that HMRC are chasing for unpaid tax. Just like Cardiff, Southend, Portsmouth, just how many times do they seem to getaway with by having the cases adjourned for later dates.

Yet, Preston are active in the transfer market

Preston North End boss Darren Ferguson has made an approach to sign Craig Morgan from former club Peterborough United.

They are linked with another player having already signed Paul Hayes. Now would it not make sense that the football authorities slap an inward transfer embargo on them until they pay the taxman in full ?

[not on facebook]

basically 'where there is a will there is a way'

[topnotch_Donny]

I am pretty sure that if a club pays all its football debt then it will live on no matter what, even through administration, because if a club pays all its football debts, e.g. player’s wages and fees owed to other clubs, then that club can then get its golden share and participate in the FL So clubs tend to pay back football debts, but not other creditors as that will be basically wiped out in the event of administration.

There’s no consequence for a chairmen (running a limited company) either. If a chairman runs a limited company into the ground, he could still start up another business the next day; however, a plc is different, and the chairmen can lose his personal assets when going into admin running a plc. That’s why most clubs are limited and not plc. The downside is you cant sell shares to the public in a limited company.

So chairmen running a limited company ( most football clubs) can take a risk, even in the sh1t as a last chance saloon. If a club is plc though, they will be much more measured as the chairmen stands to lose everything.

[silent majority]

In recent months there has been a change in FL regulations, which essentially means that the IR can chase tax payments, and make them public, after just 3 months. This appears to be the first time this change has been implemented; doesn't mean there's nothing wrong mind you!!

[Muttley]

topnotch_Donny wrote:

There’s no consequence for a chairmen (running a limited company) either. If a chairman runs a limited company into the ground, he could still start up another business the next day; however, a plc is different, and the chairmen can lose his personal assets when going into admin running a plc. That’s why most clubs are limited and not plc. The downside is you cant sell shares to the public in a limited company.

So chairmen running a limited company ( most football clubs) can take a risk, even in the sh1t as a last chance saloon. If a club is plc though, they will be much more measured as the chairmen stands to lose everything.

There's no difference in that respect between a \"limited\" company and a \"plc\" (public limited company).

They are both \"limited\" so that the liability of the shareholders is capped at the amount they have invested in their shareholding.

A plc differs from a limited company in that its shares are publicly traded on a stock exchange so can be bought by anyone, whereas limited company's shares are traded privately (so the company can choose who its shareholders are).

Also, a chairman or director does not necessarily need to be a shareholder in the company, so it is quite possible for a director or chairman to lose absolutely nothing.

The riskier forms of trading entities are \"sole traders\" and \"partnerships\" where the individuals' assets are at risk.

[Keith Myath]

Muttley wrote:

topnotch_Donny wrote:

Also, a chairman or director does not necessarily need to be a shareholder in the company, so it is quite possible for a director or chairman to lose absolutely nothing.

I can vouch for that.....  

[snods big brother]

I wonder in the past how many times have the Rovers had to fight off the approach of the HMRC for unpaid taxes?

[Dr Fundlekrotch]

It seemed to be almost weekly in the mid-90s