Author: Guy Thomas It has been reported by the Telegraph that Deloitte’s c.£100,000 review of cricket finances is nearly ready to be handed up to the England and Wales Cricket Board. The report “Building a Stronger Future for the Domestic Game” is a review of the finances of county cricket’s leading clubs and is reported to reveal the dangerous state of the game’s economy. One of the quotes lifted from the review by the Telegraph includes this harsh warning: “Without corrective action there is a looming risk of CAVs [Category A Venues] facing financial difficulties and maybe even insolvency.” Interestingly, the review appears to highlight “an over-reliance on broadcast money” and the “pitfalls of the competitive bid process” for hosting major competitions. Sound familiar? Earlier this year we saw a (then) Premiership Club, Portsmouth come very close to Liquidation and oblivion, many others clubs have been taken to the precipice, and Pompey’s Administrators have a show down with HMRC listed for 3/4th August in the High Court . This threat to cricket raises more questions then answers about the comparison of the finances of Football and Cricket: Could the cricketing counties be facing the same issues and imminent threats of insolvency that some football clubs are currently facing? Could it be that the tide of money, which previously flowed into the both football and cricket is now ebbing away, leaving comparable headaches for (football) Clubs and (cricket) Counties? Well the reality is probably no, not yet. Sorry but for one thing cricketing counties pay out a fraction of their wage bill for football Clubs. Nevertheless, whatever detail contained in this review, it is clear that the drop off in income caused by the recession will continue to throw up potentially fatal problems for both Clubs and Counties. Those that don’t review and adjust now will face dramatic problems in the near future and “maybe even insolvency”. Anyone for Tennis? Ah….maybe not.
The rest is here:
Howzat? Will Cricket face the same financial problems that now confront Football?
Author: Chris Alexander Much has been made of the interference of Prince Charles in the row surrounding development of the Chelsea Barracks site in London, some of the most expensive residential real estate in the world. The resulting litigation between CPC Group Limited (“CPC”) and Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company (“QD”) has been widely reported particularly because of the connection to the heir to the throne. While Prince Charles’ involvement does raise interesting legal issues regarding royal political interference, the key issues in dispute between the parties have been glossed over to some extent. Contract CPC and QD entered into a joint venture for the acquisition of the Chelsea Barracks site in the form of a Guernsey based special purpose vehicle called Project Blue (Guernsey) Ltd (“PB”) which applied for planning permission for the development of 638 residential units, a hotel and various other community facilities. CPC then sold its interest in PB to QD for an initial payment of just under £38 million and a deferred payment mainly dependant upon the success of the planning application up to a combined total of £81 million. QD was under an express obligation to use all reasonable but commercially prudent endeavours to achieve the triggers for payment of the deferred consideration and to act in good faith. As we now know, His Royal Highness then expressed his displeasure at the architectural merits of the scheme contained in the planning application to his royal counterparts in Qatar. Boris Johnson also expressed differing architectural concerns. The planning application was then withdrawn, potentially in breach of QD’s obligations to CPC. Proceedings With the planning application withdrawn, CPC faced a much longer wait for their second payment and sought a number of declarations that QD were in breach of their obligations and for further or other relief. QD responded to the claim by alleging that CPC had acted contrary to the requirement for good faith by forcing QD’s hand after Prince Charles had intervened and that QD had in turn accepted this repudiatory breach bringing the joint venture to an end (in their favour). Mr Justice Vos held that in withdrawing the Planning Application, QD were in breach of their contractual obligations although not in breach of their obligation of good faith. CPC were also declared not to have acted contrary to their requirement of good faith. However, it was not a complete victory for CPC, who did not get all of the declarations sought and the question of what damages they may be entitled to, was left for another day as were costs. Conclusion With the sale contract still in force, a new planning application will probably be submitted in due course and CPC may well still receive payment of the deferred consideration, albeit somewhat later than they would have liked. What therefore did this litigation achieve? Mr Justice Vos identified that had the parties focused upon resolving their mutual problems rather than digging in for an expensive fight then the dispute could well have been avoided. That sentiment often rings true whether the sums involved are millions, thousands or just hundreds of pounds. Conditional payments or conditional obligations are commonplace in many land transactions, particularly where development is involved and while in most instances royal intervention won’t be an issue, conditionality is a fertile ground for disputes.
Read more from the original source:
Impact of Prince Charles’ Interference with the Chelsea Barracks
Free case law is old hat now. The House of Lords posted its first judgment on the web in 1996 and BAILII “freed the law” in 2000. But how far have we come since then? This article sums up the current position.
Read more here:
Free case law – an overview
Author: Victoria Wells The sudden death last month of former “Diff’rent Strokes” star Gary Coleman has highlighted the importance of having a valid Will, and keeping it up to date. Despite his showbiz background, Gary’s personal circumstances were in some ways not that different to many of us, with both an ex-wife and a former girlfriend on the scene, and the lack of clarity around his wishes has led - perhaps inevitably - to dispute between the two. There is also uncertainty about what to do with his ashes, surely a situation which none of us would want our loved ones to be left in. In his 1999 Will, Gary gave instructions about his funeral, that he wanted it conducted by people who had no financial ties to him and who “can look each other in the eyes and say they really cared personally for Gary Coleman”. He also in the Will appointed a close friend as his executor. In 2005 it appears that Gary made a new Will, in favour of his then girlfriend, Anna Gray. The Will specified that he did not want any sort of funeral service. Following his marriage to Shannon Price in 2007, he made a “homemade” Will, in which he named his wife as his sole beneficiary. Apparently this was signed, but not witnessed, so lacks full testamentary validity. They divorced in 2008. Perhaps inevitably, Ms Price and Ms Gray are now in dispute about who should administer Gary’s estate, and who is entitled to that estate. Ms Gray argues that they were together for eight years, and that the 2005 Will is the valid “last Will and Testament”. Ms Gray contends that, as they were still living together at Gary’s death, despite their divorce, she is entitled to be treated as his “wife”. A lawyer has now been appointed by the courts to sort out the mess, and in the meantime both Gary’s ashes and his estate remain in limbo. The heartache and expense of all of this could all have been avoided if Gary, following each major change of circumstance in his life, had taken professional advice to ensure that his latest Will matched his current situation and that his belongings and his funeral would be dealt with as he wished, by the people he wanted.
More:
TV Star’s Death Highlights Importance of Wills
Author: Julie Gingell Could you dedicate just one office tea break to fundraising for a great charity? As close friends of the Willow Foundation , SA Law is helping to promote their latest national fundraising initiative. And the concept couldn’t be easier! Simply schedule an office tea break to raise money. Staff could be asked to make a small donation to attend; cakes and biscuits could be sold; or you could simply hold a raffle. You could even charge a fee for each tea bag - the more exotic the tea bag the higher the donation!
View original here:
Turn Tea Bags into Tenners!
Author: Guy Thomas In the run up to today’s creditor’s meeting at Pompey’s Fratton Park, Guy Thomas has been commenting in www.sportingintelligence.com on the background to today’s meeting and the options available to the creditors of Portsmouth City Football Club (In Administration) when they vote. Click here to read more.
See the original post:
Portsmouth: Why Thursday’s creditors meeting means so much to so many (not least the helpless fans)
Authors: Steve Kenneford & Caroline Beale There still appears to be confusion over the obligation to provide Home Information Packs since the announcement to suspend the same on the 21st May 2010. The situation is as follows:- Any/all properties marketed prior to the 21st May 2010 will require a fully compliant HIP. Any properties marketed after the 21st May 2010 will no longer require a HIP but will require an Energy Performance Certificate to be provided at the cost of the seller. The cost of the local authority and drainage searches will once again fall upon the Purchaser. So, effectively, with the exception of the EPC which is being retained, the last 4 years and probably the 3 before that (whilst we were all preparing ourselves for the new HIPS revolution) were a complete waste of time, effort, money and a further erosion of our already depleted rainforests in terms of the monumental waste of paper involved. Thanks for everything Yvette (Cooper)! It remains to be seen whether any further changes will be made and we will keep you advised.
The rest is here:
Life Without HIPS
Author: Guy Thomas An interesting piece from Business Advisory and Insolvency specialists BDO that reminds directors of football clubs that as the fans enjoy the thrill of the competition in South Africa, it shouldn’t distract them from their own issues closer to home. www.bdoadvisorybites.co.uk/index.php?id=298&uid=6270
See original here:
Enjoy the Game…
Author: Guy Thomas A businesses relationship with its lender will always go through changes, particularly when the environment in which the business operates changes. Whilst we may wish it otherwise when borrowing, most lenders are very conservative organisations. As such they are more likely than not to react in specific and predictable ways to different stimuli. Put another way, whilst it pays to try and understand how your businesses lender operates, some things are always going to get a reaction and that reaction may be harsher then you anticipated or planned for. One such example is when businesses spring “surprises” on their lender. One almost universally accepted way to “fall out” with a lender is to surprise them with a major event without given them forewarning or without seeking their comments/approval. A bank recently stepped in before the owners of a company could sell their business (a wholesale bakery business) after they found out the shareholders of the company had tried to buy the company themselves for a significantly reduced price. The Sunfresh Baker which produces over 40million muffins for supermarkets and small shops each year, is a family owned business. It’s Directors Mark and Stephen Taylor, who are also brothers, tried to buy their £9m turnover bakery for a mere £50,000 after struggling to pay creditors. However the abortive sale was halted when Israeli-based Bank Leumi discovered the chain of events and urgently placed the company into administration appointing an Administrator of their choice. It is believed that the directors, had not informed the bank’s UK asset finance arm about the transaction in advance, despite the bank owning a floating charge over the bakery’s assets. In a bid to safeguard the position of creditors, Leumi appointed MCR as administrators. Following a second valuation by MCR on an “in-situ basis,” the Taylor’s were asked to pay another £70,000 for the business. The Taylors eventually bought the company for £120,000. According to MCR documents, the brothers paid £35,000 as initial consideration and are due to pay monthly instalments of £5,000 until October to make up the full amount. A total of 167 creditors were owed £3.4m but it is not clear how much each will receive. Leumi, owed £1m for invoice finance, is expected to get its money when debts are collected. However Barclays, which extended £132,000 overdraft facilities; is less certain to see a return. A full report of the administration and conduct of directors is expected to be submitted to the Insolvency Service within six months. Prior to the insolvency the company last filed accounts for the year to the end of October 2008. These showed a pre-tax loss of £365,337 and it had net liabilities of more than £200,000. According to draft accounts, it made a profit of £1.1m on sales of £9.4m in the year to October 1, 2009. The sale of the business has saved 140 jobs at the company, which will now trade as Taylors the Bakers. Helpful hints for company directors and owners facing insolvency: Consult an insolvency specialist. Insolvency is a complex area with many pratfalls for the unwary. Taking advice at an early stage can help avoid the easy mistakes and help you plan the way ahead for yourself and the business Keep your creditors informed. If you don’t keep them informed then they will assume the worst and act accordingly, wouldn’t you? Review the circumstances regularly. Looking at it once and assessing the situation is not enough; having taken advice, mark out a plan, review the plan and ensure roles and responsibilities have been clearly set out within the management and encourage open discussion about how it is being implemented Keep a record for yourself. Sadly, although we hope for the best you must plan for the worst. Things can and do go wrong. If they do and your decisions are reviewed it will often be done several months hence and with hindsight. Keep a written record of your key decisions and the evidence you had to hand when they were made. Do not assume that record will be available to you in several months time Try to treat creditors equally. A common difficulty for directors in these circumstances is the pressure to treat some creditors better than others. Although the pressures to do so will be great, you must always take advice before agreeing to this. It is a very common criticism for directors of insolvent companies and can even lead to personal liability No surprises…. As above, banks really, really hate surprises an act accordingly when they find out.
Go here to read the rest:
Directors half-baked attempt at selling their business to themselves at a slice of the price
Author Chris Cook When I think of the world cup I think of 3 things: Gazza’s tears, penalty shoot out disappointments and…unexplained work place absence! There is simply no getting away from the fact that some fans are so passionate about the team they support that they might be tempted to ‘pull a sickie’ to watch critical matches. Here are my tip tips for managing “World Cup Fever” Flexible hours - allow employees to take the time off to watch the games provided that they make up the hours at a different time Shift swaps - allow employees to swap shifts in order for them to be able to watch the games as long as an appropriate level of cover is organised Unpaid leave - allow employees to take unpaid leave provided that this does not interfere with business operations Annual leave - remind employees that they will need to book annual leave in advance if they wish to watch the games, with approval of such request based on maintaining adequate staffing levels. TV/radio in the background - allow employees to have the TV or radio on in the background so that they can keep track of the games as they work or having special screenings of the games on the premises. Remember if you are planning to show the matches at work make sure you have a TV licence and you have paid your PRS licence Not everyone is a football fan - employees should be treated fairly and equally at all times. You could therefore consider offering an incentive to anyone who agrees to work through the matches when they are being screened in the office In summary when managing your employees’ during the world cup …….. “You’ve got to hold and give , But do it at the right time , You can be slow or fast , But you must get to the line , They’ll always hit you and hurt you , Defend and attack , There’s only one way to beat them Get round the back” New order “World in Motion” 1990 Come on England!!!!
Go here to read the rest:
Be on the ball: How to successfully manage World Cup “Fever”
