@Malone - the salary cap proposal was only for L1 and L2, not the Championship or the PL. But the idea that the party with the most money to throw at lawyers will always win is nonsense, our Courts apply the law fairly irrespective of the wealth of the litigants. See this example here: Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 (10 February 2009) (bailii.org)
@DevC - Wasps didn't go bust because they were spending above the salary cap. The main reason was taking on a 250-year lease on the CBS Arena (formerly the Ricoh), and expecting to generate profits from hiring out the conference facilities. But the proximity of the nearby Birmingham NEC was more attractive to most organisations, and then when Covid hit, income dwindled to zero, and they were losing millions. They raised £35m by selling bonds to supporters, which they never repaid. I never bought one, I could see where this was going.
I may owe you an apology, @Wetherby_blue. I saw that @LeedsBlue had nominated you to give us your three music picks on the Gasroom Playlist thread and feared you might miss the nomination as I couldn’t recall ‘seeing’ you on the Gasroom very often. Sod’s Law. Here you are in the here and now !
You may also take exception to my suggestion that you have at least as good a claim as I have to be Gasroom marmite king (or queen, of course).
@Malone - Nothing 'romantic' about the idea at all.
Over the past 6 years, I've represented clients, both Claimants and Defendants, in over 300 small claims cases in the County Court, with an overall success rate of 81%. In many of those, the other side were assisted by firms of solicitors, and/or had barristers advocating for them at the final hearing.
Money can get you the best lawyers, but if your case is a crock of shite, no amount of eloquent advocacy can polish a turd.
It can also allow you to take a chance on cases others wouldn't be able to pay the costs of, ride out extremely long or delayed cases , pursue cases where the payout for winning may not cover the costs, pay for expensive subject matter experts and generally seek to influence press coverage, government policy and legislation.
I may be generalising but in my experience it tends to be well off people who talk down the advantages of being minted. For those who are of the impression that having money is no help at all. It is.
Also my experience is the people above are first to a freebie and last to put their hands in their pockets.
The common law system used in England & Wales IS the best in the world, which is why the same system, or a version of it, is used by about 80 countries around the world.
It's also untrue that you have to be 'minted'. For anyone on certain benefits, Help With Fees is available (see Form EX160) so that in many cases, you get 100% remission of Court fees.
Bit late in the day to be debating the legal system. ChatGPT will be in charge by the end of the year and the entire process will just be feeding the documents into a computer and hitting a button to find out the result.
Hopefully the computer won't check to see whose wearing the most expensive cufflinks.
I am sure that's true for people on benefits @bargepole but I daresay that as usual the majority of us...people in the middle...would not necessarily qualify for help and therefore could not afford to fight a protracted legal battle...which is why people like Trump in the US and in the past the likes of Maxwell and Goldsmith, Weinstein, etc etc use the threat of long and expensive legal action to stiff contractors and silence critics.
Most of them. The big names are USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India etc., while 3 EU countries - Ireland, Malta and Cyprus - also use it.
In mainland Europe, countries like France, Germany and Spain have a civil law system which relies far more on rules and regulations, and court hearings tend to be inquisitorial rather than the adversarial system we have here. The imposition of EU regulations and directives on the UK undermined our legal system in my opinion, and was the main reason I voted to leave.
The court system is under massive stress and queues like most public services. I think the chances of an offence being investigated properly let alone getting to court as a slim as they ever have been in a number of areas.
Am I correct in saying that the end of year statement doesn't show what the Couhig's may still be willing to pump into the club. It doesn't necessarily mean we are in trouble? Our owners are worth more than the club and I'd like to think they wouldn't leave us in a state.
If you're referring to the page quoted in the tweet, it's the balance sheet from the clubs published dated accounts June 2022.
It added nothing new to what RC told us at the meeting last year, nor does it indicate anything about the Couhigs intensions. You'd need to ask Kieran Maguire why he chose this month to make the tweet he did.
Which I would expect to appear in the accounts for the 12 months to June 2023, since the payment was probably made as part of the process of Derby exiting administration on July 1st (after the period covered by these accounts).
“Money can get you the best lawyers, but if your case is a crock of shite, no amount of eloquent advocacy can polish a turd.”
or
Money can get you our most successful football league management duo, but if your team is a crock of shite, no amount of effort from Gaz and Dobbo can polish a turd.
The accounts were filed at Companies House on 31 March hence Maguire’s tweet as soon as the info was publicly available.
The cash figure given is slightly wrong - we didn’t have £8k in the bank ( I presume the £8k was some form of petty cash) , we were actually £110k overdrawn. Perhaps surprising we have an overdraft facility at all.
Other unclears was a £900k “other debtor” which may have been an unpaid transfer fee (did we sell anyone that season especially in May/June 22) or may have been at least in part Derby money invoiced in June but not received until July (in which case it is included as a reduction in the large accounting loss).
A reduction in “other” borrowing (loan to the club from Couhig?) accounted for roughly £1m of the fall in cash.
Normally you would expect a “related party” note outlining transactions with owners or their companies. Not included here which is surprising. Must be a reason but not sure what.
Just received the full accounts as a founder member. Confirmed in the "Other Income" note that we received £400k in "a legal settlement", presumably from Derby (as per Rob C's statement, where he also said we spent about £100k on lawyers to get that payment). The same note to the accounts also says that we received £2.5m for business interruption insurance for the previous year. I'm not sure where that scores in terms of the profit/loss and financial years, given that it was presumably received after 31.7.21. But given that we made a £2.4m loss in 21/22, I guess it must contribute to the £3.2m profit for 20/21.
Comments
@Malone - the salary cap proposal was only for L1 and L2, not the Championship or the PL. But the idea that the party with the most money to throw at lawyers will always win is nonsense, our Courts apply the law fairly irrespective of the wealth of the litigants. See this example here: Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 (10 February 2009) (bailii.org)
Also, most F1 teams have billionaire owners, but the governing body has imposed a cost cap limiting what they can spend on the cars, and that seems to work: Formula 1 cost cap: What is it and how does it work? (autosport.com)
@DevC - Wasps didn't go bust because they were spending above the salary cap. The main reason was taking on a 250-year lease on the CBS Arena (formerly the Ricoh), and expecting to generate profits from hiring out the conference facilities. But the proximity of the nearby Birmingham NEC was more attractive to most organisations, and then when Covid hit, income dwindled to zero, and they were losing millions. They raised £35m by selling bonds to supporters, which they never repaid. I never bought one, I could see where this was going.
What flack are the Couhigs getting? The accounts only confirm what RC has already said openly a few months ago.
I may owe you an apology, @Wetherby_blue. I saw that @LeedsBlue had nominated you to give us your three music picks on the Gasroom Playlist thread and feared you might miss the nomination as I couldn’t recall ‘seeing’ you on the Gasroom very often. Sod’s Law. Here you are in the here and now !
You may also take exception to my suggestion that you have at least as good a claim as I have to be Gasroom marmite king (or queen, of course).
Are you really saying that more money doesn't give you a greater chance of success in the courts?
I quite like the romanticism of that idea.
@Malone - Nothing 'romantic' about the idea at all.
Over the past 6 years, I've represented clients, both Claimants and Defendants, in over 300 small claims cases in the County Court, with an overall success rate of 81%. In many of those, the other side were assisted by firms of solicitors, and/or had barristers advocating for them at the final hearing.
Money can get you the best lawyers, but if your case is a crock of shite, no amount of eloquent advocacy can polish a turd.
It can also allow you to take a chance on cases others wouldn't be able to pay the costs of, ride out extremely long or delayed cases , pursue cases where the payout for winning may not cover the costs, pay for expensive subject matter experts and generally seek to influence press coverage, government policy and legislation.
Robs been busy, a very decent email on the way for season ticket holders
I’m beginning to get a bit concerned about the number of turd polishing references that are pooping up on the Gasroom.
Now, to rub it in, a great piss-take thread has pooped up, three days late!
Nick (Mr Loophole) Freeman manages to get a lot of Premier League footballers off motoring offences for a fee the likes of us couldn't afford!
Had a podcast on today about the real story behind the Netflix film about 2 arms dealers.(film might be called War Dogs? With Jonah Hill)
One of the guys had a decision of accepting the plea bargain and go guilty, or take the government on at a cost of £100s of thousands.
Funnily enough he went for the former approach!
I may be generalising but in my experience it tends to be well off people who talk down the advantages of being minted. For those who are of the impression that having money is no help at all. It is.
Also my experience is the people above are first to a freebie and last to put their hands in their pockets.
"England has the best legal system in the world" = "I've never used the legal system"
The common law system used in England & Wales IS the best in the world, which is why the same system, or a version of it, is used by about 80 countries around the world.
It's also untrue that you have to be 'minted'. For anyone on certain benefits, Help With Fees is available (see Form EX160) so that in many cases, you get 100% remission of Court fees.
Bit late in the day to be debating the legal system. ChatGPT will be in charge by the end of the year and the entire process will just be feeding the documents into a computer and hitting a button to find out the result.
Hopefully the computer won't check to see whose wearing the most expensive cufflinks.
How many of those countries are former colonies?
I am sure that's true for people on benefits @bargepole but I daresay that as usual the majority of us...people in the middle...would not necessarily qualify for help and therefore could not afford to fight a protracted legal battle...which is why people like Trump in the US and in the past the likes of Maxwell and Goldsmith, Weinstein, etc etc use the threat of long and expensive legal action to stiff contractors and silence critics.
Most of them. The big names are USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India etc., while 3 EU countries - Ireland, Malta and Cyprus - also use it.
In mainland Europe, countries like France, Germany and Spain have a civil law system which relies far more on rules and regulations, and court hearings tend to be inquisitorial rather than the adversarial system we have here. The imposition of EU regulations and directives on the UK undermined our legal system in my opinion, and was the main reason I voted to leave.
And isn’t that the main reason they have legal systems based on the UK, instead of it being a reflection of the quality of the UK system?
The court system is under massive stress and queues like most public services. I think the chances of an offence being investigated properly let alone getting to court as a slim as they ever have been in a number of areas.
'England doesn't have the best legal system in the world' = 'I haven't lived abroad'
Which countries have you lived in @Kim_il_Swan ?
Shit.....LX1 is getting close to uncovering my plan to bring Sharia to the UK.......
Am I correct in saying that the end of year statement doesn't show what the Couhig's may still be willing to pump into the club. It doesn't necessarily mean we are in trouble? Our owners are worth more than the club and I'd like to think they wouldn't leave us in a state.
She was so 90s
And how does 'shit' get through? I spent at least 45 seconds thinking up puns and ended up with 'poo' and 'wee'.
We don't know where we stand these days
If you're referring to the page quoted in the tweet, it's the balance sheet from the clubs published dated accounts June 2022.
It added nothing new to what RC told us at the meeting last year, nor does it indicate anything about the Couhigs intensions. You'd need to ask Kieran Maguire why he chose this month to make the tweet he did.
Someone tweets something someone already knows and told someone else
Which I would expect to appear in the accounts for the 12 months to June 2023, since the payment was probably made as part of the process of Derby exiting administration on July 1st (after the period covered by these accounts).
“Money can get you the best lawyers, but if your case is a crock of shite, no amount of eloquent advocacy can polish a turd.”
or
Money can get you our most successful football league management duo, but if your team is a crock of shite, no amount of effort from Gaz and Dobbo can polish a turd.
The accounts were filed at Companies House on 31 March hence Maguire’s tweet as soon as the info was publicly available.
The cash figure given is slightly wrong - we didn’t have £8k in the bank ( I presume the £8k was some form of petty cash) , we were actually £110k overdrawn. Perhaps surprising we have an overdraft facility at all.
Other unclears was a £900k “other debtor” which may have been an unpaid transfer fee (did we sell anyone that season especially in May/June 22) or may have been at least in part Derby money invoiced in June but not received until July (in which case it is included as a reduction in the large accounting loss).
A reduction in “other” borrowing (loan to the club from Couhig?) accounted for roughly £1m of the fall in cash.
Normally you would expect a “related party” note outlining transactions with owners or their companies. Not included here which is surprising. Must be a reason but not sure what.
Very good analysis @DevC
Just received the full accounts as a founder member. Confirmed in the "Other Income" note that we received £400k in "a legal settlement", presumably from Derby (as per Rob C's statement, where he also said we spent about £100k on lawyers to get that payment). The same note to the accounts also says that we received £2.5m for business interruption insurance for the previous year. I'm not sure where that scores in terms of the profit/loss and financial years, given that it was presumably received after 31.7.21. But given that we made a £2.4m loss in 21/22, I guess it must contribute to the £3.2m profit for 20/21.