Points deduction poll

Quote: Adeybull "So? Precise date of logging at CH is not relevant in this case. It was anyway reported in the media on 12 November that he had left the company. Not that the precise date makes any difference whatsoever in this case.

No. He stated "...there was no debt to HMRC..." not "...no monies owing...". The distinction could be important, since most people would take "debt" in this case to mean something overdue for payment. The October PAYE was not due for payment until 22/11. But, in any case, I suspect HMRC would have moved well before mid-January if the October PAYE remained unpaid.

Quote: Adeybull "Would they?'"

I already stated the wording he used left scope for being disingenuous. I doubt he would have told an outright lie though, given the very public nature of his letter. Even HE would not be that dumb.

Quote: Adeybull "His wording was clear. You seem to be confusing debt with due dates. A debt is incurred as soon as any transaction generating any liability takes place.'"

Again, no shìt, Sherlock...

Not at all. As every other reader apart from yourself will clearly see from what I said. You stated, unequivocally that "...It would be extremely difficult for any business to accrue debts of £170k to HMRC between the date Mr Whitcut says he left the company, i.e November 2013 and the date the winding up order (sic) was issued. ". Leaving aside your clear lack of understanding about insolvency processes and terminology, I demonstrated how if would be perfectly possible. And that I was, and am, happy to provide the maths to support that.

My rebuttal of your statement did not require me to prove what the balances oustanding were, and when they arose. It merely required me to demonstrate that YOUR statement was wrong. Which I did.

Quote: Adeybull "You haven't demonstrated that. If there were no debts when Whitcut left, how & when did both those amounts accrue?'"

Well what an amazing thing! I qualified in 1979, but I never knew that till now! Thank you SO much for enlightening me!

See my earlier comments re the October payroll PAYE, and the potential for disingenuous use of semantics.

Really? In which case, pray enlighten us as to how those players will have been employed or engaged by the club then? And how PAYE will have been avoided?

In framing your answer, you might just want to bear in mind that I have previously stated I saw detailed club financials as recently as late last summer. So, it might not be unreasonable to assume that I know the gist of the facts. Being bound still by a NDA, until OKB is finally liquidated, anyway, I obviously cannot state those facts on here.

Quote: Adeybull "NDA? In what capacity did you see these financials?'"

I have already state85kd that two payrolls might make the £170k you have been quoting. Three surely would. That was based quite simply on a total gross payroll of say £2m (probably too low), deductions from employees averaging say 30%, and employers' NIC (above the LEL) of 13.8%. I never suggested £85k/month PAYE - you did.

Quote: Adeybull "£170k /2 is £85k How would three surely?'"

Further to my previous point, I was careful to use assumptions that a reasonable financial person might well use, as a starting point. Maybe other financial people on here would care to comment on the assumptions? If I had a clearer idea of the likely actual monthly numbers, based on what I had actually seen as above, I would obviously not be in a position to use that information for the reason stated. Instead, I would need to do a simple calculation from first principles. As I did.

Quote: Adeybull "So you've seen figures but have no idea of numbers?'"

Oh but I have.

I demonstrated that your statement was rubbish. It was not necessary to state the actual numbers to be able to do that. Merely to demonstrate how such numbers could easily arise.

But now, we come to the crunch, where you get to look even more stupid again.

1 - The HMRC petition for winding up, presented on 16/1/14 (I am looking at it now) does not state the amount they were claiming. How do you know what that amount was? And what it comprised?

2 - The statement of Affairs, dated as of 31/1/14, DOES state the amounts due to HMRC. Again, I am looking at it now. In fact, it states TWO amounts - and, in doing so, probably indicates that the administrator, too, needs a bit of a refresher course. The values areI made no assumption. I merely pointed out one element of what the amount could be made up of. You clearly don't know, but accept Whitcut was being honest when he said there was no debt, when there clearly was.'"