They say that there is no equity in taxation, which is a subject close to my heart. Another subject close to my heart is Altrincham FC, whose recent experiences, both positive and negative, suggest that there is also no equity in football administration.
For the 99.9999% of the population who do not share my enthusiasm for the Robins, here is a short potted history of the past 2 years:
1. Early in season 2005-06, Accrington Stanley sign a player named James Robinson from an Icelandic club, and fail to obtain international clearance to transfer his registration.
2. Robinson does not play first team football for Stanley, who after a short period transfer him to Altrincham.
3. Altrincham, believing Accrington to be in the same country as Altrincham (discuss), do not seek international clearance.
4. Robinson plays 13 games for Altrincham, in which they secure 18 points, before transferring to Richmond Eagles in Australia.
5. Richmond Eagles discover that Robinson’s international registration is still in Iceland, and inform Altrincham accordingly, who in turn inform the Football Association.
6. The FA deducts 18 points from Altrincham for fielding an ineligible player, which moves them from a position of safety in the Nationwide Conference to bottom place, and results in their relegation. Accrington Stanley, who have won the Conference, suffer no points deduction as Robinson has not played first team football for them.
7. Canvey Island drop out of the Conference and Scarborough are relegated due to failure to meet all football-related debts on liquidation. As only two teams are to be relegated due to expansion, Altrincham are reprieved.
8. On 28 April 2007 Altrincham are relegated in the top Conference relegation place, fair and square.
9. On 5 May 2007 Boston United play Wrexham in a ‘loser goes down’ match in League 2. With a couple of minutes left and Boston losing 2-1, in a bid to avoid the 10 point deduction that accompanies going into administration applying in 2007-08, Boston United are hurriedly placed into administration.
10. Although Boston United successfully negotiate a creditors’ voluntary arrangement, their major creditor, HM Revenue & Customs (see there is some tax in here) refuses to allow them to pay football creditors in full as part of the arrangement. Apparently this may be contrary to HMRC’s usual practice in such matters, but as the source for this is the Boston United website I will not comment further.
11. Because Boston United cannot pay their football creditors in full (see 7 above) they are relegated straight through the Conference to ‘Blue Square North’ (love that name) and Altrincham are again reprieved from relegation, for the second season running.
Still with me? Before I comment on the above, I will offer you a couple of sub-plots.
1. AFC Wimbledon play Jermaine Darlington in a number of matches during 2006-07 without international clearance, obtaining, coincidentally, 18 points in those matches. On appeal their 18-point deduction is reduced to 3. They reach the Ryman Premier League play-offs but lose to Bromley.
2. West Ham United play Carlos Tevez in the vast majority of their matches in the 2006-07 Premiership, despite doubts as to whether the club holds his registration. West Ham are heavily fined for failures in provision of documents, but avoid any points deduction. Today this decision has been upheld by the Premier League arbitration panel.
I think the following points arise:
1. The treatment of Altrincham and AFC Wimbledon for the same offence cannot be equitable, and demonstrates a worrying inconsistency in the FA’s approach.
2. Whilst I am not an insolvency expert, it appears to me that the FA’s policy on payment of football-related creditors appears to be arguably an incitement to insolvent football clubs to engage in fraudulent preference of football creditors. That is to say that there is an obvious temptation to concentrate all the available funds on football creditors and let the others ‘go hang’. Given that the others are usually principally HM Revenue & Customs (a combination of PAYE, national insurance, VAT and corporation tax)) that means your and my money as taxpayers.
3. I am staggered that Boston United feel that HM Revenue & Customs has treated them unfavourably by not acquiescing in the full payment of football creditors as part of their Corporate Voluntary Arrangement. If it has indeed previously been HMRC’s policy to so acquiesce, then again as a taxpayer I do not feel that to be an acceptable use of my money.
4. In summary I think that the FA would be better advised to promote responsible management of football club finances, rather than appearing to incite directors of financially troubled clubs to see their fellow clubs all right at the expense of other creditors (typically you or I as taxpayers or non-football creditors) by promoting a “we’re all right Jack, stuff you” approach in times of financial difficulty. They would also be well-advised to treat clubs guilty of similar offences in a similar manner, in order to avoid appearing to adopt one law for some and another for others. None of this does anything to improve the FA’s already heavily tarnished image.
Mark Simpson
3 July 2007
Comments