What’s Bad For Accrington May Be Good For Oxford

Ian

Ian began writing Twohundredpercent in May 2006. He lives in Brighton. He has also written for, amongst others, Pitch Invasion, FC Business Magazine, The Score, When Saturday Comes, Stand Against Modern Football and The Football Supporter. Ian was the first winner of the Socrates Award For Not Being Dead Yet at the 2010 NOPA awards for football bloggers.

You may also like...

12 Responses

  1. Jertzee says:

    I am getting sick and tired of clubs mismanaging their funds.

    Once again clubs live beyond their means and once again you and I, the taxpayer, get stitched up, along with other smaller creditors.

    Relegate every team when this happens as 10 points deduction seems no deterrent.

  2. Rob Arnold says:

    Whilst I agree that clubs should pay their bills and live within their means I think it is a bit rich to suggest that Accrington don’t deserve top ply their trade in the Football League whilst Oxford and Luton do because they have bigger crowds. Lets be honest, you would struggle to find two better examples of how not to run a football club over the past few years than Luton Town and Oxford United.

    If a small club runs a tight ship and manages its finances properly then there is no reason why they shouldn’t be in the Football League ahead of so-called “bigger” clubs.

  3. Martin says:

    But these smaller clubs don’t run their finances properly, that’s the reason they keep featuring in these articles and it’s a big problem for football.

    Luton and Oxford have a much larger fanbase with goodwill to abuse and exploit.

  4. Paul says:

    ‘But these smaller clubs don’t run their finances properly’

    Eh most football clubs don’t run their finances properly including Luton and Oxford.

    You can throw in Liverpool, Southampton, Norwich and may others too numerous to list.

  5. Ron Ipstone says:

    The problem with HMRC and the football creditors rule is the fact that one class of creditors (football creditors) are preferred at the expense of the other creditors. The policy of HMRC is to vote against any CVA which has the effect of preferring a class of creditors. Even if the CVA provided for the payment of HMRC’s debts in full, HMRC would vote against it in accordance with its stated policy.

    HMRC have a wider duty to promote commercial morality than the ordinary creditor, who is entitled to look after his own interests and only his own interests. HMRC have to look after the interests of all the trade creditors.

  6. Rob says:

    “The policy of HMRC is to vote against any CVA which has the effect of preferring a class of creditors. Even if the CVA provided for the payment of HMRC’s debts in full, HMRC would vote against it in accordance with its stated policy.”

    Not true. HMRC vote against CVAs there is a class of creditors who are to receive a higher percentage than the HMRC. Football creditors are considered super creditors (and therefore receive 100%).

    This has only been the case for companies that have entered administration since April 2003 (when the law changed and HMRC were no longer considered super creditors), and HMRC has voted against every CVA football club that has entered administration, starting with the Franchise in June 2003, purely on the basis that other creditors are receiving a greater share of their debts than HMRC are.

    For clubs that entered administration before the law change happenned (up to and inclusing Ipswich Town whose adminstration began in February 2003), HMRC received 100%, as did football creditos, so HMRC were happy. Not that the HMRC voted in those cases, as super creditors don’t get a vote in CVAs – because the CVA is to decide the percentage that creditors will receive, so only creditors and not super creditors get a say.

  7. Martin says:

    I guess the really interesting question is why the Government took HMRC’s preference as a creditor away in 2003?

    It’s almost like they knew there was a recession coming…

  8. Observer says:

    I am wondering whether it has reached the stage where, for good corporate practice, the preferential status of the football creditors should be removed. If Club A realises that its inability to meet future instalments on a transfer payable to Club B can tip Club B over the edge maybe, just maybe, the custodians of the clubs may start thinking slightly differently. Also, how can it be correct for say Leicester City, a few years ago, to pay St John’s Ambulance 10p in the £, whilst continuing to pay their top players £30,000 a week?

    Coming from a totally different angle, when Bury were in financial turmoil in 2001, Accrigton Stanley, then a Unibond League club organised a fund-raising match. Bury fans have not forgotten this, and are planning to attend the next Accrington home match in numbers next Friday.

    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=265364155404

  9. If we follow the logic that clubs with bigger crowds should be the ones playing at the higher level, then Burnley’s promotion should immediately be revoked and Newcastle United reinstated in the Premier League. Oxford need to earn their return into the Ninety Two – and it would also help if they built their fourth stand.

    Accrington will soon be returning to the non-league or worse and deserve our opprobrium, but there are far bigger clubs in debt (Malcolm Glazer’s Manchester United being one) and the bulk of our ire should be directed towards those rather than poor Stanley.

  10. As an Oxford Fan, the financial management of Oxford has been appalling over the last 20 years, leaving us in a total mess, but hopefully one we can now recover from with the currentl excellent Chairman, Kelvin Thomas. unlike most owner/chairman, Kelvin is just the boss, not the owner, and seems a very capable manager.
    I dont agree that we deserve to be higher becasue we have bigger crowds, since the place need to be earned.
    Clubs will always spend crazy money to try and succeed, it will never change, but systems are now at last in place to make the penalty for failure worse, maybe making some clubs think again.
    Accrington will probably survive, even if it means Administration, but the 10 point penalty will make it certain relegation. what interest me is why do companies give Football clubs credit, when the record of admisitrations and suppliers losing out is so poor. In our industry its straight on proforma at the slightest whiff of financial trouble.

  1. September 3, 2009

    […] What’s Bad For Accrington May Be Good For Oxford “The tangled paths that various football clubs weave across each other don’t come much stranger than the ongoing saga of Accrington Stanley and Oxford United. When Accrington resigned their place in the Football League in controversial circumstances in 1962, Oxford were elected in their place. When Oxford surprisingly fell through the trap door and into the Blue Square Premier in 2006, Accrington were promoted in their place. Now, three years later, Oxford United are top of the Blue Square Premier after an outstanding start to the season and Accrington are staring the financial abyss square in the eye again.” (twohundredpercent) […]

  2. September 18, 2010

    […] Trust in his battle to gain control, but, as Ian King of TwoHundredPerCent pointed out at the time (5), “The white knight on the horizon at Stanley continues to be the Accrington Stanley […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>