lady-isobel-barnett Posted October 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 Oh, I know all that and have the same elsewhere, but let's not kid ourselves that there was a grand strategy to bring in players that could be sold to cover our debt. We struck lucky, to an extent, with both of those players. Prior to that, we were just as guilty of running up debts as anyone else. I was going to highlight your last sentence. Dundee bought players in lieu of paying tax whereas we sold players to pay our tax so I feel we're less guilty. However it's just occurred to me that I spoke with an ex member of the Board two or three months before Harkins & Twaddle were sold. I asked the same question I already had asked McCall minutes before and got a different answer. Now I'm not going to call either liars but the manager's answer proved to be more accurate. There's no point in digging up the dirt now but if we did sell those two to pay the taxman then we were getting conflicting information from above. Put another way I tend to agree with above poster to a point. Selling the players to cover debts was no doubt the correct procedure but I doubt it was part of any plan never mind strategy. We just got lucky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milhouse Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 Apparently that's their youth structure kaput. Coaches and Scouts employment terminated. Will effect around 100 kids in various age groups. According to one long time coach monies that were due them from charitable events and also from supposedly ring-fenced SFA grants have disappeared. Story here Won't somebody please think of the children! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 Eh, yeah. Not in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted October 25, 2010 Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 Their position actually seems a lot worse than many people might think. According to this article, they're £2m in debt and owe over £400K in tax: http://www.heraldscotland.com:80/sport/more-scottish-football/chisholm-dundee-board-were-bewitched-by-melville-s-millions-1.1062370 Maybe, current league position aside, we're not that bad off after all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Incredible Adam Spark Posted October 25, 2010 Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 Their position actually seems a lot worse than many people might think. According to this article, they're £2m in debt and owe over £400K in tax. That's if Melville decides to call in the money he 'invested', although other debts, such as money owed to the poilce, have began to surface. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted October 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 Their position actually seems a lot worse than many people might think. According to this article, they're £2m in debt and owe over £400K in tax: http://www.heraldscotland.com:80/sport/more-scottish-football/chisholm-dundee-board-were-bewitched-by-melville-s-millions-1.1062370 Maybe, current league position aside, we're not that bad off after all... As Melville is still apparently contributing 4 x £50K instalments he's presumably written off what's due to him and all this points to a low % CVA. The real problems appear to be cash flow if/when they come out of administration. I can only assume the taxman, police etc won't allow credit. They're fortunate that the Bennett fella doesn't appear interested in charging them rent. If the SFL inflict a 20pt penalty then I'd expect further lay off of players as they prepare for part time football next season. I also imagine they're becoming more dependent on selling Griffiths in January and are praying for a good price. For that to happen there's got to be interest from a few clubs and big ones at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bunny Posted October 25, 2010 Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 As Melville is still apparently contributing 4 x £50K instalments he's presumably written off what's due to him and all this points to a low % CVA. The real problems appear to be cash flow if/when they come out of administration. I can only assume the taxman, police etc won't allow credit. They're fortunate that the Bennett fella doesn't appear interested in charging them rent. If the SFL inflict a 20pt penalty then I'd expect further lay off of players as they prepare for part time football next season. I also imagine they're becoming more dependent on selling Griffiths in January and are praying for a good price. For that to happen there's got to be interest from a few clubs and big ones at that. Can't see the SFL having the bottle to fine them as much as that. 9 point maybe, max, though I'd be pleased to see anything really in double figures. A problem surely though for them is that unless a big bidding war takes place, they're unlikley to get the full value for any of their players as whoever's buying knows they can't afford to hang on past January to sell. Not saying they might not realise a decent sum but doubt it will be a huge one. They'll certainly be getting a lot less for Harkins than they paid to us (assuming they paid it all). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norgethistle Posted October 25, 2010 Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 As Melville is still apparently contributing 4 x £50K instalments he's presumably written off what's due to him and all this points to a low % CVA. The real problems appear to be cash flow if/when they come out of administration. I can only assume the taxman, police etc won't allow credit. They're fortunate that the Bennett fella doesn't appear interested in charging them rent. If the SFL inflict a 20pt penalty then I'd expect further lay off of players as they prepare for part time football next season. I also imagine they're becoming more dependent on selling Griffiths in January and are praying for a good price. For that to happen there's got to be interest from a few clubs and big ones at that. Is he still paying??? seems the books dont balance at another of his companys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted October 29, 2010 Report Share Posted October 29, 2010 Looks like Dundee are expecting a 10-point reduction, which they're happy with. Not surprising, as that's almost no punishment at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggyman Posted October 29, 2010 Report Share Posted October 29, 2010 (edited) Looks like Dundee are expecting a 10-point reduction, which they're happy with. Not surprising, as that's almost no punishment at all. To be fair to the other teams in the league they should be docked enough points to see them 2 or 3 wins away from the bottom team which happens to be us, so i would be happy to see Dundee docked enough points for them to be on no or 3 points Just looked at table 10-13 points would do me Edited October 29, 2010 by Jaggyman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleGreySky Posted October 29, 2010 Report Share Posted October 29, 2010 Dundee are already looking like they wouldn't be able to mount a league challenge this season. So, end result: the stay in SFL1. 10 point penalty end result: they stay in SFL1. This is so unfair. They're not being punished at all. If it's going to be that low, give them a ten point penalty that comes in next season. That would be approaching fair. It's ridiculous that they've gone about signing other teams who are still in the same division as theirs players with money they didn't have, yet are clearly not being punished by the difference having those players has made! Gary Harkins and Leigh Griffiths are worth about 20 points already, and some cup results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ifu03340 Posted October 29, 2010 Report Share Posted October 29, 2010 Dundee are already looking like they wouldn't be able to mount a league challenge this season. So, end result: the stay in SFL1. 10 point penalty end result: they stay in SFL1. This is so unfair. They're not being punished at all. If it's going to be that low, give them a ten point penalty that comes in next season. That would be approaching fair. It's ridiculous that they've gone about signing other teams who are still in the same division as theirs players with money they didn't have, yet are clearly not being punished by the difference having those players has made! Gary Harkins and Leigh Griffiths are worth about 20 points already, and some cup results. If there is league reconstruction then they wont get relegated anyway (Nor will we for that matter!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted October 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2010 If there is league reconstruction then they wont get relegated anyway (Nor will we for that matter!) I wouldn't discount those bumblin' SFL idiots to start next season with an eight team Div1. Got a feeling that Dundee will receive more than a ten point deduction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted October 29, 2010 Report Share Posted October 29, 2010 I wouldn't discount those bumblin' SFL idiots to start next season with an eight team Div1. Got a feeling that Dundee will receive more than a ten point deduction. Do we have a representative on the committee that will make the decision? Ami? Let's hope (s)he votes for real justice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted October 29, 2010 Report Share Posted October 29, 2010 Got a feeling that Dundee will receive more than a ten point deduction. I think you might be right, your ladyship. We will find out on Monday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted October 29, 2010 Report Share Posted October 29, 2010 Looks like Dundee are expecting a 10-point reduction, which they're happy with. Not surprising, as that's almost no punishment at all. SFL should throw the book at them - they didn't go into admin due to some unfortunate circumstances, bad luck, being forced to upgrade their stadium to meet SFL requirements or anything like that. and....... Dundee are already looking like they wouldn't be able to mount a league challenge this season. So, end result: the stay in SFL1. 10 point penalty end result: they stay in SFL1. This is so unfair. They're not being punished at all. If it's going to be that low, give them a ten point penalty that comes in next season. That would be approaching fair. It's ridiculous that they've gone about signing other teams who are still in the same division as theirs players with money they didn't have, yet are clearly not being punished by the difference having those players has made! Gary Harkins and Leigh Griffiths are worth about 20 points already, and some cup results. Agree completely with PGS(with one amendment*). Situation Dundee find themselves in is all of their own making, splashing the cash on one side of the business (OTT wages, as well as transfer fee's, changing management team, etc) while ignoring other creditors and liabilities which every other football club has to pay timeously (HMRC, police, local small businesses etc). Have no sympathy with their 'plight', have I - they could so easily have avoided it if they had acted responsibly. * What I would argue in terms of a more fair and suitable punishment is a 20-30 point penalty THIS season, AND whatever league they start in next season, they have an automatic 10 point deduction before they kick a ball. Heavy? Yes. But they cheated (or gambled, you choose) big-time and a strong message must be sent out to all Scottish clubs that this two-fingered approach they undertook, especially after they did similar 7 years ago (when they got £23 million of debt written off and escaped without any penalties from the football authorities) is not only frowned upon, but is actively discouraged, and anyone who not only cheats in this way, but twice in seven years and to the extent of which they have, is penalised accordingly. The punishment must suit the crime and a paltry wee slap on the wrists or 10 or less points punishment would not reflect the extent, seriousness or repetiveness of their actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted October 29, 2010 Report Share Posted October 29, 2010 * What I would argue in terms of a more fair and suitable punishment is a 20-30 point penalty THIS season, AND whatever league they start in next season, they have an automatic 10 point deduction before they kick a ball. Heavy? Yes. But they cheated (or gambled, you choose) big-time and a strong message must be sent out to all Scottish clubs that this two-fingered approach they undertook, especially after they did similar 7 years ago (when they got £23 million of debt written off and escaped without any penalties from the football authorities) is not only frowned upon, but is actively discouraged, and anyone who not only cheats in this way, but twice in seven years and to the extent of which they have, is penalised accordingly. The punishment must suit the crime and a paltry wee slap on the wrists or 10 or less points punishment would not reflect the extent, seriousness or repetiveness of their actions. That seems harsh. But I cannot find any good reason to argue against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryHell Posted October 29, 2010 Report Share Posted October 29, 2010 When the administrator first went in he said they'd last until christmas, I assume that only the sale of Harkins and Griffiths will keep them going any longer. He said they had a 50-50 chance of survival. I'd be amazed given this if thay only get docked 10 points. Livi also had to pay a bond to guarantee they could honour fixtures - given the above, would it not be prudent to ask the same of Dundee. Personally, i'd give them a 9 point penalty every 9 games this season - meaning the league table wouldn't look as bad for them, it would still be possible to make up the points and the team and fans would have something to play for. I think if you docked them 30 points in one go their season (and club?) would be finished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted October 29, 2010 Members Report Share Posted October 29, 2010 Perhaps the administrator is hoping to keep things going until Christmas so that he can punt Harkins and Griffiths during the January window? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.