|
Post by Shrewboy on Dec 9, 2003 11:50:14 GMT 1
For exceeding the salary capping ( 65% of turnover ). Chester aswell. 20 k fine and 3 point deducted 1st offence, then more lattter.
OH dear
|
|
|
Post by welshyshrew on Dec 9, 2003 12:03:02 GMT 1
The fact we are under investigation , if true, doesn't surprise me at all, but if we were charged with anything, I'd be shocked.
|
|
|
Post by Shakeysmagicsponge on Dec 9, 2003 12:12:08 GMT 1
So Luke is definately off then. Needs to be sold to put up our turn over, to get the massive wage bill back within the 65%.
Welshshrew how do you think Exeter feel. One rule for Hereford (in a CVA) and one rule for them. If we have broken the rules then we have to take whats coming.
If we are guilty, who is to blame will need to be asked. Somebody is responsible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2003 12:18:33 GMT 1
Sorry SMS, you misunderstood me.
What I meant was that our increased spending on players is bound to increase suspicion.
However, I wouldn't have thought we'd be daft enough to break the rule.
In terms of turnover, would our earnings over the past 9 months be included?
Can anyone give me a web-site which contains the definitive rules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2003 12:21:15 GMT 1
Is there a link to somewhere to make this accusation of STFC official?
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Dec 9, 2003 12:34:15 GMT 1
Shrewboy can you email me, ian@shrewsburytown.co.uk, cheers.
|
|
|
Post by DRASFounder on Dec 9, 2003 12:37:18 GMT 1
Bad Shrewboy Bad I did fear this could be the case when someone said that Chester were under investigation last week, thing is, if its true, what good has it done us so far??!? DRAS DRAS DRAS!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2003 12:40:55 GMT 1
From the confguide.com's news section:
>>>>>All clubs are subject to an "Approved Playing Budget", agreed in writing by 30th June for the following season.
Failing to provide the documentation for calculating the budget results in a "baseline" figure being set
For other clubs, figures are based on:
A baseline figure A figure based on the average of the previous two season's audited turnover figures, or the previous single year's (whichever is greater). 25% of the turnover figure is added to the baseline to arrive at the approved playing budget. A club may increase budget on a one-off basis via introduction of more share capital (must be completed by 30th June).<<<<<<<<<
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2003 12:48:37 GMT 1
Ant cheers for that.
I'm just guessing here, but would think that our massive turnover last year would protect us for this season and next in terms of the wages cap?
|
|
|
Post by Loaderbull2 on Dec 9, 2003 13:02:21 GMT 1
So Luke is definately off then. Needs to be sold to put up our turn over, to get the massive wage bill back within the 65%. Welshshrew how do you think Exeter feel. One rule for Hereford (in a CVA) and one rule for them. If we have broken the rules then we have to take whats coming. If we are guilty, who is to blame will need to be asked. Somebody is responsible. As a Hereford fan i find your comment about Hereford in a CVA rather absurd.You cannot backdate something like this by a few years. Think about it. If they brought the speed limit on motorways down to 60 mph now, would you think it fair to backdate that by 5 years and get several hundred speeding fines in the post and 900 points on your licence. No thought not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2003 13:03:25 GMT 1
Correct Loader.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Dec 9, 2003 13:22:31 GMT 1
If we fall foul of this I will be up the wall, as we are taking people on to have them playing in the stiffs - e.g. Lee Bell.
|
|
|
Post by Shakeysmagicsponge on Dec 9, 2003 13:53:07 GMT 1
Loader you have missed my point.
The rules governing all this have been set. Chester and Shrewsbury are under investigation (apparently?) for breaking the 65% of turn over rule. The comment about Exeter was made because they will have points deducted for being in a CVA and the conference want to fall into line with the Football League in respect of this. The League propose that all clubs still in administration when this is passed will have points deducted. So will it apply to Hereford who are also in a CVA. Exeter are also unable to sign players due to an embargo in place as a result of a CVA. Hereford also have a CVA in place but are able to sign players.
The Conference have opened up a few issues which they may not be able to handle on their own. Come on down the Football League, and quickly.
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Dec 9, 2003 14:00:31 GMT 1
If we fall foul of this I will be up the wall, as we are taking people on to have them playing in the stiffs - e.g. Lee Bell. Spot on there Sean
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Dec 9, 2003 14:30:51 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Llanelian on Dec 9, 2003 16:04:59 GMT 1
If I remember rightly the wage capping scenario is based on the last audited annual turnover, ie 2002/3. It is otherwise impossible to calculate turnover. Within 'the books' for last year ther will be figures associated with the cup run, which, I would guess, would be something in the region of £750.000-£1million gross. I think the club made about £400,000 eventually. So, it is ridiculous to suggest that STFC have exceeded the 65% capping. I recon this investigation rumour is probably something invented by those jealous guys in the conference that can't stand a club being run properly.....commercially I mean....I'm not refering to anyother aspect of the club. I fully support the likes of Exeter being done because of the CVA thing.....I like Exeter as a club, but I think it would be really unfair if they got away with it. STFC could have moved ahead with ground relocation or redeveloping Gay Meadow, and thought 'sod the financial implications'. Exeter have a big new stand and other ground improvements; those will not disappear. whether you like the present Board of STFC or not, they do have business and commercial morals, and do not take risks. For Exeter and others to get away with this scenario is punishing us for being responsible and honest. Voluntary liquidation was an option for this club, as was enforced bancrupcy, but we whethered the storm, with a cup run and luck. No sugar daddy or debts to pull the rug out. I think we were probably the first club to come out of the league without financial traumas and player unrest.
|
|
|
Post by loaderbull2 on Dec 9, 2003 17:58:18 GMT 1
Thanks for mentioning the fact we are paying 100% back and also we haven't just spent all the money on stands etc with a miserly 10p in the pound payback. What they did is tantamount to cheating. Wish i could get away with only paying off 10% of my credit card bill this Xmas.
|
|
|
Post by FrankwellCP on Dec 10, 2003 10:41:24 GMT 1
Hereford are paying 25p in the £1 back. Please check your facts. They have a £1.3 million loan still outstanding borrowed to purchase the freehold at Edgar Street which they then found couldn't be done. Spent the money anyway and have no nice shinny stands to show for it. The have been in a CVA since 1998. They are not repaying all their debt. The loan will never be repaid
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Dec 10, 2003 21:27:41 GMT 1
Any truth in the rumour that Telford are getting round it on the basis that the players are employees of Miras (Shaws construction company) rather than employees of Telford United FC?
End of the day they are paying probably similar wages to us on half the gates so if we are breaching the rules then surely they are.......although with Shaw on the conference board he obviously knows how to stretch the rules
|
|
|
Post by fullofbull on Dec 10, 2003 21:58:52 GMT 1
I can assure you that Hereford are paying 100% of the debt owed to the CVA back. Under the terms of the CVA we cannot purchase any player. We are not affected by the new rules, that so far, only the conference are applying to clubs entering a CVA. The maximum penalty for breaking turnover rules is a £10000 fine or 3 point deduction. The £1.3 million we owe is to a development company and is separate to the CVA ,and cannot be repayed. It can be called in at any time, but not much point doing so because if they do they get nothing, and end up with a football stadium that hasn't got a team, and a plot of land that they can't do anything with, that has to be maintained.
|
|