Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
leicestersq

Pay Up Pompey

Recommended Posts

I saw this in the Daily Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/portsmouth/7920152/Portsmouth-back-in-High-Court-as-existence-is-threatened-again.html

I was most intrigued by this.

HMRC is challenging the rule whereby football creditors are given preference over other companies and individuals who are owed money.

Can anyone tell me if this is legal? I know it is in court and stuff, but if a judge were to find this legal, then doesnt have huge implications for all of us? I mean, can I set up a sport, say tiddlywinks, and conduct business with tiddlywink players, maybe employee them and do 'tiddlywink stuff', like deliver goods and wash cars, and then when the taxman comes for payment, simply avoid paying by making up a rule that says tiddlywink creditors get first dibs on any money?

Perhaps HSBC could make up a rule that says Banksters get preference before HMRC. Oh, I forgot, they do.

UK, the State Default you ordered, will soon be ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear that this rule was tolerated by HMRC over the decades because the Treasury didn't need the money. Now the govt needs the cash HMRC is going to assert itself that it is indeed first in the queue.

I'm surprised football has got away with this for so long.

It will be interesting to see what the court decides, just think of the implications if HMRC lose this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how the sovereign could lose this unless by choice. Even if a judge ruled that football creditors were higher than the government in precedence.. judge have no say over contracts when it comes to a sovereign.

As I mentioned on another thread yesterday, politicians have been hiding behind judges decisions as an excuse to why they cannot do things like roll back stupidly lucrative wage and pension contracts with fat cats. But anyone who has studied law knows the courts have no say over the actions of the sovereign. At any moment a sovereign can modify any contract it wants in any way it wants. Its not like a contract between individuals or corporations where contracts are legally binding and enforceable.

The Condems have been pulling out this excuse a lot lately on why they are not rolling back fat cat contracts that labour made. Saying the law does not allow them to change it - so allegedly they are powerless. But this is just flat out wrong. They are choosing not to roll back those contracts, but they do have the power to change them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how the sovereign could lose this unless by choice. Even if a judge ruled that football creditors were higher than the government in precedence.. judge have no say over contracts when it comes to a sovereign.

As I mentioned on another thread yesterday, politicians have been hiding behind judges decisions as an excuse to why they cannot do things like roll back stupidly lucrative wage and pension contracts with fat cats. But anyone who has studied law knows the courts have no say over the actions of the sovereign. At any moment a sovereign can modify any contract it wants in any way it wants. Its not like a contract between individuals or corporations where contracts are legally binding and enforceable.

The Condems have been pulling out this excuse a lot lately on why they are not rolling back fat cat contracts that labour made. Saying the law does not allow them to change it - so allegedly they are powerless. But this is just flat out wrong. They are choosing not to roll back those contracts, but they do have the power to change them.

aa3,

are you certain about what you are saying?

For example, the pay of say judges, appears to be out of all proportion to their worth. But if the government decided to cut their pay and pensions, would breach human rights legislation? Or are the actions of the state above human rights in such a case? Or does it need to be tested in court?

To have a government that can do whatever it likes is highly dangerous if you have the wrong people in power. But sometimes a state can get itself into such a mess that you almost need dictotorial powers to make things right. I wouldnt like to see that happen, but if the government cannot cut pay levels and already accrued pension benefits in the public sector, then we really are in a mess. I really do fear a state default, and under such conditions, we may end up losing many of the rights and privileges that we currently enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how the sovereign could lose this unless by choice. Even if a judge ruled that football creditors were higher than the government in precedence.. judge have no say over contracts when it comes to a sovereign.

This is wrong on so many levels. For a start, monies owed in tax could hardly be argued to be contractually owed. And then there is the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 S 1.

1 Right to sue the Crown

Where any person has a claim against the Crown after the commencement of this Act, and, if this Act had not been passed, the claim might have been enforced, subject to the grant of His Majesty’s fiat, by petition of right, or might have been enforced by a proceeding provided by any statutory provision repealed by this Act, then, subject to the provisions of this Act, the claim may be enforced as of right, and without the fiat of His Majesty, by proceedings taken against the Crown for that purpose in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought that HMRC were top of the pile, no argument?

Would be surprised if they lose this.

They lost that automatic status about 5 years ago IIRC.

This football rule seems one hell of an anomaly though, be nice to see it overturned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Condems have been pulling out this excuse a lot lately on why they are not rolling back fat cat contracts that labour made. Saying the law does not allow them to change it - so allegedly they are powerless. But this is just flat out wrong. They are choosing not to roll back those contracts, but they do have the power to change them.

Yes they could easily change them, however it would require them to exit a number of European treaties - pretty much all of hem in fact.

Put simply, the government COULD slash pay and pensions, but they would have to give up on their beloved EU super-state experiment first. Can anyone see the lib-dems doing that this side of a national disaster?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they could easily change them, however it would require them to exit a number of European treaties - pretty much all of hem in fact.

Put simply, the government COULD slash pay and pensions, but they would have to give up on their beloved EU super-state experiment first. Can anyone see the lib-dems doing that this side of a national disaster?

Good point. A sovereign can pass legislation that orders its ministries to submit to the rulings of this or that court. It can also rescind that legislation in whole or make exceptions.

Even the EU treaties seem to be another one the political elite is hiding behind. I've seen in other areas they bypass EU rules like bailing out banks when they feel like it. But when it comes to something they don't want to do, they bring up the EU treaties forbid us excuse.

We need leaders not people with a bunch of excuses why they are powerless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aa3,

are you certain about what you are saying?

For example, the pay of say judges, appears to be out of all proportion to their worth. But if the government decided to cut their pay and pensions, would breach human rights legislation? Or are the actions of the state above human rights in such a case? Or does it need to be tested in court?

Yes I am sure see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity. Part of the problem is we always have lawyer leaders who choose to submit to the court. But they do not need to. The court, including the judges work for them, they are on the government payroll.

To have a government that can do whatever it likes is highly dangerous if you have the wrong people in power. But sometimes a state can get itself into such a mess that you almost need dictotorial powers to make things right. I wouldnt like to see that happen, but if the government cannot cut pay levels and already accrued pension benefits in the public sector, then we really are in a mess. I really do fear a state default, and under such conditions, we may end up losing many of the rights and privileges that we currently enjoy.

I believe ultimately we will need a dictator to get out of the problems. Just because special interest is so entrenched - while no one is representing the public welfare. Ultimately special interests will bankrupt the country.

But its not neccessarily a dictatorship to say that the parliament is the highest body in the land. That is a democracy, and to pass things in parliament they do need a majority of the vote in parliament. That is why our vote should matter so much, our elected officials should be able to exercise real power.

If they are locked into all sorts of laws and long term contracts that cannot be changed, and have to submit to judges at all times, then that is a different form of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe ultimately we will need a dictator to get out of the problems. Just because special interest is so entrenched - while no one is representing the public welfare. Ultimately special interests will bankrupt the country.

But its not neccessarily a dictatorship to say that the parliament is the highest body in the land. That is a democracy, and to pass things in parliament they do need a majority of the vote in parliament. That is why our vote should matter so much, our elected officials should be able to exercise real power.

If they are locked into all sorts of laws and long term contracts that cannot be changed, and have to submit to judges at all times, then that is a different form of government.

You mean like Germany?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like Germany?

hes a card is aa3

however he has a point that is is potentially rational to come to such a decision, when you have such mass corruption and fraud being rewarded and carried out by your leaders you only need the other ingredient of poverty to be added and the realisation of how badly screwed over you may have been becomes a driving factor coming to such a choice.

People look back in History and wonder how dictators ever come to power. The conditions that we are witnessing throw a lot more clarity on how it happens.

Edited by Tamara De Lempicka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this in the Daily Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/portsmouth/7920152/Portsmouth-back-in-High-Court-as-existence-is-threatened-again.html

I was most intrigued by this.

HMRC is challenging the rule whereby football creditors are given preference over other companies and individuals who are owed money.

Can anyone tell me if this is legal? .

It's a requirement of the FA. ISTR that HMRC have challenged it before, and lost. Perhaps they have a different angle this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a requirement of the FA. ISTR that HMRC have challenged it before, and lost. Perhaps they have a different angle this time.

From what I have read about dealing with debt websites, it is a requirement that you deal with your creditors equally. So if you owe your mate £100, and the bank £100, and you only have £100, you cant give your mate the lot, it has to be 50/50.

Seems obvious why too doesnt it. I am sure that this is the law.

And the FA are not above the law. They cant make a rule that says you can pay your mates first up, or else everyone would do the same.

It is such an important principle, it has to be challenged. If what the FA does is found to be legal, then we can all make some rules like this up to get out of debt. The country wouldnt last long if that happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 261 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.