dedlock Posted 8 September 2013 Posted 8 September 2013 in terms of bankruptcy law you have a pecking order - secured bond holders, unsecured bonds holders then other creditors. Players should rank pretty lowly in an actual liquidation. It all depends on whether you are bought by new owners in administration or are liquidated. If you are liquidated the old club literally doesn't exist and the contracts are terminated. Presumably the new owners agreed to all the prospective pay-outs when they bought the club. Football differs, Football League regs.require football related debts to be satisfied in full.
svensson Posted 8 September 2013 Posted 8 September 2013 I thought FFP was dreampt up to stop the pompey type business model. The same model our owners seem to have had the blue prints for. Never have and never will buy into our owners. They are not here for the club at all just themselves and what they can make. King Power Shite all over instead of propper sponsors and at what price? Yeah bang on mate, as we are paying numerous players £80k a week aren't we. Whats wrong with them being here for themselves? How many owners in the past have we had that threw money at it due to the love of the club?? The whole LCFC infrastructure has been vastly improved and thats something you can't complain at.
whitlock Posted 8 September 2013 Posted 8 September 2013 Some of those figures are crazy. They are only being paid this money because I guess they went weeks/months without being paid what they were agreed to be paid. I don't see why they should just give it up, easy for us to say but I'm sure no one on here would just give it up if it was them. Money makes the world go round.
Corky Posted 8 September 2013 Posted 8 September 2013 Anyone who is slagging David Nugent off doesn't have a ****ing clue. The outstanding debt owed to players was along the lines of £26 million and collectively they brought that figure down to around £7 million. Nugent is legally owed money, he's just become a father and for all you know he could have a career ending injury in training on Monday and that's him done. You want someone to blame for how much money is in football, players are at the bottom of that list. Supply and demand, if you were being offered that money to do your job, you would take it so don't be hypocritical. Absolutely incredible that a relatively small club in the top flight could rack up those figures with a sub 20k capacity ground.
GingerrrFox Posted 8 September 2013 Posted 8 September 2013 Absolutely incredible that a relatively small club in the top flight could rack up those figures with a sub 20k capacity ground. They owed something like 25-30 players in unpaid wages, sign on fees etc. Ridiculous amount of money.
The Horse's Mouth Posted 8 September 2013 Posted 8 September 2013 As much as I love Nugent, he is an utter cunt for taking money (that he doesn't need) off a struggling club. I would go as far to call him a cvnt because it is his money, but I'd rather he wouldn't take it.
MPH Posted 9 September 2013 Posted 9 September 2013 So that's approx 140k a month they owe former players... id be surprised if their income covers that, let alone the wages for their current team... they'll probably be paddling up this creek looking for their paddle for a few more years yet....
Bert Posted 9 September 2013 Posted 9 September 2013 It makes me laugh how people think just because these are footballers they should waive their right to anything that they are legally entitled to.
sylofox Posted 9 September 2013 Posted 9 September 2013 Yeah bang on mate, as we are paying numerous players £80k a week aren't we. Whats wrong with them being here for themselves? How many owners in the past have we had that threw money at it due to the love of the club?? The whole LCFC infrastructure has been vastly improved and thats something you can't complain at. We did'nt need to pay 80k a week but we were paying players more than the business could sustain/maintain. We payed stupid wages for a championship side and why to bring in a load of dross. Yes the infrastructure has improved but at what cost. We owe it all back to them plus intrest. Once they tire of our little game or the business plan has failed and they walk we are finished. A new owner will need to finance it and when he/she can't they will be off. Oh and the first owners still own the ground oh are we LCFC or Pompey. We should thank our lucky stars for FFP and not our owners who where happy to piss it up the wall for 8% intrest.
hackneyfox Posted 9 September 2013 Posted 9 September 2013 If they walk they lose 100m. What does 'Oh and the first owners still own the ground oh are we LCFC or Pompey.' actually mean?
Jace Posted 9 September 2013 Posted 9 September 2013 Anyone who critises Nuge for taking the money I would like to see how you feel if your employer didn't pay you for work that you had done and before you say 'but he is a footballer he must be loaded' just remember there are many others in other Countries who will be paid far less than you do and survive.
LanguedocFox Posted 9 September 2013 Posted 9 September 2013 David Conn, in an article in The Guardian last week, pointed out that "football creditors, who according to the Premier and Football Leagues' much-criticised "football creditors rule" must be paid in full – Portsmouth have committed to do so over four years. Other creditors, owed £24m, accepted the [Portsmouth Supporters] trust bid's offer of around £1m". To be fair, Portsmouth have also said they will pay small businesses and charities any money they are owed in full The football creditors rule should be against the law: all creditors should get the same deal, just as they do when any other business goes into administration.
LanguedocFox Posted 9 September 2013 Posted 9 September 2013 On a related issue, the Glazers have accepted that Man U's debt/expenditure levels are unsustainable if the club fails to win major championships (eg Premier League, Champions League). Now, I am old enough to remember when Matt Busby retired, and within three or four years they had been relegated, and were getting gates in the mid-teens. I doubt they would go down quite as much as that, but if they had even a Liverpool-style slump, you can bet that their non-core fanbase - which is most of them - would evaporate like a puddle in a heatwave. Like most English clubs, they are already finding it difficult to attract the kind of top-rank players they need to win the Champions League, and without the 70,000+ crowds and related TV money, it will get even harder to do so. It will be interesting to see what happens at the end of this season when, as I suspect, they will finish out of the top four and without a trophy to their names. The next few years will be interesting ones.
sylofox Posted 9 September 2013 Posted 9 September 2013 If they walk they lose 100m. What does 'Oh and the first owners still own the ground oh are we LCFC or Pompey.' actually mean? Means paying them rent for years to come. they won't sell the ground on ensuring they get there money back. Just like Noades did at palace. As for the LCFC or Pompey bit I ment we could have and still could go the same way as them.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.