Tag Archives: Carl31

Carl31’s Guest Post on How a Failing Football Team Would be Dealt with in the “Real World”

Carl31 posted this as a comment on a piece earlier this week. Unaccountably I missed it when going through comments and thought others might have done so too.

Carl started by quoting a section from my post, shown in bold below, before adding his own comments.

“One of the perennial issues about penalising football teams relates to what happens after a change in ownership. The argument goes that, if the team is sold off, why should the new owners and the innocent fans pay for the wrongdoing of the incompetents or worse who formerly owned the club?

That however simply ignores the nature of corporate entities. If that interpretation was allowed to prevail, then a football club could commit the most heinous rule breaches, and then have its assets sold to another company before the disciplinary process concluded. Thus the “club” would be innocent and all the fault would lie on the old owners. This would be the case even where the assets were sold by one company to another owned by exactly the same people!”

—————————————————————

Paul,

In the commercial world, this happens and doesn’t seem to be an issue for most. When a company folds, unable to pay its creditors, the new company that takes on the assets is not held responsible for the misdemeanors of the previous owners. If the new owners are the same owners as the old owners they fall foul of laws on ‘phoenixing’. Continue reading

33 Comments

Filed under Football Governance, Guest Posts, Insolvency, Rangers

What’s in the SPL/SFA/SFL/Rangers 5-way agreement? Guest Post by Carl31

Many comments here and on other football blogs have indicated that the whole Rangers issue can’t and won’t progress towards a resolution within Scottish Fitba until the grown-ups publish the ‘5 Way Agreement’ in full.

A statement including a summary was produced, but not the agreement itself. Arguably, this may be due to some extent to an air of secrecy by the SFA, SPL and SFL, but at the least the absence of full publication is not desirable for an atmosphere of honesty, openness and trust to cut like spring sunshine through the current dank air that’s about our beautiful game.

In the spirit of the age old tradition of applying a bit of pressure until something breaks, I would like to invite guesses and speculation as to what is in the 5 way agreement. Many contributors may have done so somewhere in the blogosphere already. These can be formulated by looking at what has transpired or what may have transpired via some indicator or another. Here’s my clumsy attempt first. Continue reading

101 Comments

Filed under Football Governance, Guest Posts, Rangers, SFA, SPL

“Brief Encounter” or “What’s in a Title?” – Guest Post by Carl31

“I’m here to assist you in filling out your form,” said the guy behind the desk, “What’s your name?” he begun.

“Carl,” I replied.

“… and your surname?”

“Thirtyone”.

“Pardon?” he queried.

“It’s a long story. I know it’s a number, but I like it. It rolls off the tongue.”

I smiled, a bit nervously. He looked unmoved, and after a short pause returned to his paperwork. The guy wasn’t the Gestapo, but he wasn’t exactly full of fun, either. He was in the middle, I supposed.

“Its not often we get numbers for surnames, sir. That’s up to you, though,” he said without raising his head, “Can I have your title, please?” Continue reading

100 Comments

Filed under Alleged Humour, Allegory, Guest Posts

Some More on Freedom of Information – Guest Post by Carl31

I must credit Carl31 with having sent this piece to me before I posted my article this morning. However, I have only now read it, and as it looks as things from a different perspective than mine, I thought it useful to post.

——————————————————

 

Should Scotland become independent, they would either have to apply for EU membership as a new state, or retain membership since they are currently a territory with membership, as part of the UK. The Scottish Government (SG) was subject to a FoI request on the existence of legal advice on this question. They refused, but the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC) ruled that the info should be made public. I wrote recently in a short piece, about the dual position of the law over the release of the existence of this legal advice (please see these pages, Guest Posts, September 24th). Continue reading

5 Comments

Filed under Freedom of Information, Guest Posts, Politics, Press

Sport Does Not Have Probity and Trust at Heart – Guest Post by Carl31

The FTT verdict is out!!

…no not that one, the one recently that found in favour of McLaren over HMRC, and which decided, apparently, provided you are under the jurisdiction of HMRC, that if the governing body of the sport you participate in fines you, it is tax deductible.

Please see

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/mclaren-win-tax-verdict-over-spying-scandal-8208660.html

for a brief report.

(Below I mention some sportspeople and companies, and offer some discussion on a ruling. For clarity, I do not suggest that any person or company or party acts or acted with anything other than utmost integrity, and I do not suggest any wrongdoing other than what is already publicly known).

My understanding of this case is :

Past cases, I guess, will have made distinction between ‘commercial losses’ and ‘penalties imposed for breaches of the law’ that occur while a company is trading. So generally a number of types of business or commercial loss that eat into profit, or negate it, are deductible, but losses due to penalty for breaking the law aren’t.

But, when the company is involved in sport, the losses incurred due to breaking the law of that sport, rather than the law of the land, are deductible. It would seem that these losses are deemed as being under the heading ‘commercial losses’.

The taxpaying company argues that the fine imposed is set as a business cost that reduces profit. Just because this cost is a fine, that has come about due to what is judged as contravention of the rules of the sport participated in, does not affect the fact that it is still a business cost. It is still a cost “wholly laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade or profession”, (Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988)(TA). Continue reading

39 Comments

Filed under Guest Posts, HMRC