|
Post by shrewinjapan on Feb 12, 2004 2:12:52 GMT 1
Sorry, can't figure how to link properly.. news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_conf/3479417.stmWhat's everybodies take on this? I'M sorry for their fans but it seems bloody irresponsible to me for a club with no money to do this and put other clubs in jeopardy- they have only a very slim chance of going up this season anyway and I doubt they would be in relegation trouble even minus 12 points. I thought FIFA had rules about clubs going to the courts? They have benefitted from their financial mismanagement and they have to take the consequences I say.
|
|
|
Post by x emz x on Feb 12, 2004 2:18:39 GMT 1
this mite sound silly 2 some of u but can sum 1 simply explain what exactly is goin on regardin exeter and the points reduction-which i understand- but what its gotta do with all the other clubs??
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Feb 12, 2004 2:19:02 GMT 1
Link worked anyway
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Feb 12, 2004 2:31:15 GMT 1
They are taking the Conference to Court over their penalty Ema. The Conference, basically being the Clubs in it, are asking the clubs to cough up 25,000 quid to fight the case.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Feb 12, 2004 2:38:04 GMT 1
as a team in the conference,will exeter have to contribute £25,000 towards fighting themselves?
|
|
|
Post by PorkyShrew on Feb 12, 2004 2:41:37 GMT 1
ha! thats a good point... wud be very funny if they did!
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Feb 12, 2004 2:43:37 GMT 1
That's what I was thinking. But I think 25000 is the total, not each club right??
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Feb 12, 2004 2:58:12 GMT 1
I think Exeter City are playing a very interesting hand. It's excellent to see a club that is owned and run by fans getting their heads around something as complicated as this. Compare and contrast with the bumbling at Leeds United. Exeter City were driven into the ground by the previous owners. The new directors ran the risk of unlimited liability and prison terms undr the Companies Act if they did not enter into a Corporate Voluntary Arrangement. Firstly a bit of background on CVAs: The decision to propose a CVA to creditors is one taken by the directors of a company. It is a formal proposal to creditors to maximise the return to them whilst allowing the company to continue. The proposal is lodged at Court and then circulated to all creditors together with notice of a Meeting of Creditors. Creditors can attend the meeting to discuss the proposals for a CVA or they can vote by proxy. Inevitably, a number will not vote at all. However, so long as 75% of those who bother to vote (i.e. accounting for 75% of the total debt) support the proposals then they are accepted and they are binding on all creditors who have been given notice of them. This means that all creditors are formally bound into the arrangement without necessarily achieving 100% specific agreement. Even creditors who vote against must abide by the terms of the CVA if sufficient other creditors vote in favour. A typical CVA will last for between three and five years and will provide for the company to make voluntary contributions from income on a monthly basis. These monies will be paid to the appointed insolvency practitioner who will agree the claims of creditors and who will pay out dividends as and when it is economic for him to do so. Creditors do not need to receive 100p in £ for a CVA to be accepted. At the end of the CVA period, if it is successfully completed then creditors are obliged to write off any part of the debt which has not been repaid. Aside from shirt-tearing at the thought of companies "Getting away with it". The important thing to note is that The order of priority for payment of dividends to creditors is governed by statute. Since September 2003 the Inland Revenue has ceased to be have preferential claims, however, Exeter City's CVA made its "footballing creditors" a preferential creditor. In the past thie preferential treatment of "footballing creditors" was the price for not being expelled and starting off against as a sunday morning side or playing against Ludlow Town reserves. However given that the IR has lost its right to be treated as a preferential creditor it decided it was not having any of this and appealed against the CVA. Clearly if the IR action is successful it jeopardises the future of Exeter City Football Club. Further Exeter City Football Club has launched a legeal action against the Conference board over the points deduction. I gather than the club is broadly in agreement with the IR over the issue of "footballing debts". The £25,000 has come about because a judge (not Exeter City) decided not to go down the arbitration route but have a court hearing instead. A nice little earner for the legal profession.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Feb 12, 2004 3:02:08 GMT 1
That's what I was thinking. But I think 25000 is the total, not each club right?? £25,000 isn't going to fund a very good QC for very long. I'm pretty certain it is £25K each. Even though the IR's action is against Exeter City it seems very unlikely that the Conference would not want to have representation there too, as well as action between the Conference and club.
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Feb 12, 2004 3:12:04 GMT 1
They are playing a dangerous game. If they lose they will be liable for costs which they will have not a hope in hell of paying. That will leave them iredemably bankrupt and possibly take a few other clubs with them. If they win they likely gain very little but leave the Conference up a creek without a paddle. I do not see the point in their doing this. The blame may lay with the previous administration but they are still Exeter football club and their nice stadium did not leave with the bad directors. I think the FA should step in here and try to sort this mess out before it's too late and non-league football is ruined to only lawyers benefit.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Feb 12, 2004 3:17:48 GMT 1
They are playing a dangerous game. If they lose they will be liable for costs which they will have not a hope in hell of paying. That will leave them iredemably bankrupt and possibly take a few other clubs with them. If they win they likely gain very little but leave the Conference up a creek without a paddle. I do not see the point in their doing this. The blame may lay with the previous administration but they are still Exeter football club and their nice stadium did not leave with the bad directors. I think the FA should step in here and try to sort this mess out before it's too late and non-league football is ruined to only lawyers benefit. If they lose the action with the IR then they will get their 12 points back whatever happens in the action between the club and the conference. The implications of the IR action is serious for the whole of football, unless football changes its rules. For example, if the IR is a creditor to Leeds United, then administration may not be a practical option in saving the club even if the directors feel that this is the only course of action they can take under the Companies Act. Ptentially you could see more directors resigning from the Leeds board to try to protect themselves.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Feb 12, 2004 3:22:12 GMT 1
are their lawyers working on a no win no fee basis,similar to claims direct ?
|
|
|
Post by skipwithrob on Feb 12, 2004 12:27:51 GMT 1
except it wasnt no win no fee at claims direct. It no win, oh well we still indirectly did you over ... (through as someone on here pointed out, the charging of a £1500 insurance before they even the case on)
|
|
|
Post by Jason H ECFC on Feb 12, 2004 13:40:54 GMT 1
Sean,
Some very good observations, rather than the hysteria we've had to put up with over the last month or so.
The BBC article might have been written by Andrew Gilligan, such is the "fudge" and certain inaccuracies contained therein. It even claims the IR is counter-suing ECFC - er, the IR is suing us and we've been forced (through the Conference refusing to meet us before last week) to take pre-emptive action. This is not designed in any way to put the future of other clubs in jeapordy, as Mr Moules and his cronies have been spouting. The 12 points issue - made the crux of the matter by the BBC article - is actually an aside, which ECFC actually tried to get dealt with separately with the FA and the Conference by arbitration, but again Judge Weeks refused this.
I know it all comes down to which form of propaganda you choose to believe, but I know I believe my fellow supporters over an organisation that just last week agreed a press release, only to change the wording so it reneged on everything agreed just a day later.
I'm sorry if any Shrews fans have felt aggrieved or angry about the situation - I know if I'd read what was coming out of the press about another club I'd be pretty angry about it too. I have a soft spot for Shrewsbury since that excellent day in 2000 when we "let you win" that vital match - I hope these events haven't spoiled any of that for you. Best of luck for the rest of the season!
|
|
|
Post by skipwithrob on Feb 12, 2004 13:50:47 GMT 1
I'm behind the supporters of Exeter in their attemps to sort out YOUR football club.
Have never had a problem with your supporters, and have some really good memories, it is to some extent the FA's fault that Exeter are in the position they are in as it is the FA who ratifies (im pretty sure) all board appointees.
|
|
|
Post by Jason H ECFC on Feb 12, 2004 14:02:44 GMT 1
The problem is the FA currently DOESN'T ratify them, or at least just turns a blind eye when convicted criminals (even for Fraud!) pitch up wanting to run clubs.
|
|