|
Post by seanclevedongas on Feb 6, 2017 11:45:08 GMT
Dwane sports can give the money to rovers and it will still count as revenue under ffp . In fact any chairman, owner or president of a football club can give their club money and it goes down as revenue. Just look at city. Steve lansdown does it all the time, it's just not a very sustainable business model especially for a club with as poor infrastructure as rovers. The only way an owner can give money is as a gift not a loan etc, so far I don't think we've seen any evidence of DS gifting Rovers any money? You could say paying off the Wanga loan is as good as a gift......
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Feb 6, 2017 12:07:58 GMT
Then Rovers will be in trouble, because the clubs owners are in trouble. This structure of operating companies being owned by a holding company is normal, look at Alphabet and Google. It exists for tax management purposes. To protect against liability as well? In a way
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 6, 2017 12:10:11 GMT
To protect against liability as well? In a way Well, if someone came looking for compensation from BRFC, say, if BRFC actually have no money then they can't proceed any further?
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Feb 6, 2017 12:28:06 GMT
Well, if someone came looking for compensation from BRFC, say, if BRFC actually have no money then they can't proceed any further? It's a bit more complicated than that, depends on the proximity of the subsiduary and parent - are they essentially the same business, does the parent company have complete control over the subsiduary etc. See Chandler v Cape Plc
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2017 12:28:56 GMT
Well, if someone came looking for compensation from BRFC, say, if BRFC actually have no money then they can't proceed any further? It's a bit more complicated than that, depends on the proximity of the subsiduary and parent - are they essentially the same business, does the parent company have complete control over the subsiduary etc. See Chandler v Cape Plc What channel is that on?
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 6, 2017 12:30:13 GMT
Well, if someone came looking for compensation from BRFC, say, if BRFC actually have no money then they can't proceed any further? It's a bit more complicated than that, depends on the proximity of the subsiduary and parent - are they essentially the same business, does the parent company have complete control over the subsiduary etc. See Chandler v Cape Plc I'm not that intelligent to get most if any of that but I'm guessing the reason behind parent companies is for some sort of financial protection?
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Feb 6, 2017 12:32:57 GMT
It's a bit more complicated than that, depends on the proximity of the subsiduary and parent - are they essentially the same business, does the parent company have complete control over the subsiduary etc. See Chandler v Cape Plc I'm not that intelligent to get most if any of that but I'm guessing the reason behind parent companies is for some sort of financial protection? I don't understand what you're saying but I reckon it's to do with parents giving their kids money.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 6, 2017 12:34:10 GMT
I'm not that intelligent to get most if any of that but I'm guessing the reason behind parent companies is for some sort of financial protection? I don't understand what you're saying but I reckon it's to do with parents giving their kids money. Right. Gotcha.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Feb 6, 2017 12:37:15 GMT
It's a bit more complicated than that, depends on the proximity of the subsiduary and parent - are they essentially the same business, does the parent company have complete control over the subsiduary etc. See Chandler v Cape Plc I'm not that intelligent to get most if any of that but I'm guessing the reason behind parent companies is for some sort of financial protection? A parent company may be held responsible for a subsiduary's liabilities if they are basically the same company. So Bristol Sport may get away with it, as it clearly has a seperate identity to City, but Dwayne Sports don't seem to do any commercial activity seperately to BRFC, so probably wouldn't. But it would be for a court to decide.
All a bit hypothetical
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 6, 2017 12:41:16 GMT
I'm not that intelligent to get most if any of that but I'm guessing the reason behind parent companies is for some sort of financial protection? A parent company may be held responsible for a subsiduary's liabilities if they are basically the same company. So Bristol Sport may get away with it, as it clearly has a seperate identity to City, but Dwayne Sports don't seem to do any commercial activity seperately to BRFC, so probably wouldn't. But it would be for a court to decide.
All a bit hypothetical
So if I munch my way through a cheese & oinion pasty at the Mem and get chronic bubblepoo later on that evening, BRFC aren't responsible? Is that what you're saying?
|
|
|
Post by Midsomer Murderer on Feb 6, 2017 12:42:20 GMT
Best thread ever
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Feb 6, 2017 13:00:00 GMT
A parent company may be held responsible for a subsiduary's liabilities if they are basically the same company. So Bristol Sport may get away with it, as it clearly has a seperate identity to City, but Dwayne Sports don't seem to do any commercial activity seperately to BRFC, so probably wouldn't. But it would be for a court to decide.
All a bit hypothetical
So if I munch my way through a cheese & oinion pasty at the Mem and get chronic bubblepoo later on that evening, BRFC aren't responsible? Is that what you're saying? I think the food stands are franchised out aren't they? So the franchisee would be liable.
For the sake of argument, let say that BRFC runs the pasty stands. BRFC definately would be liable, and if BRFC couldn't pay, then I think that Dwayne Sports probably would be as they are not really seperate to BRFC. However, at the moment, I think Dwayne Sport's only asset is BRFC, so would be pointless.
If the same think happened south of the river though, its unlikely that Bristol Sport would be made to cough up. Even more reason to hate them.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 6, 2017 13:02:42 GMT
So if I munch my way through a cheese & oinion pasty at the Mem and get chronic bubblepoo later on that evening, BRFC aren't responsible? Is that what you're saying? I think the food stands are franchised out aren't they? So the franchisee would be liable.
For the sake of argument, let say that BRFC runs the pasty stands. BRFC definately would be liable, and if BRFC couldn't pay, then I think that Dwayne Sports probably would be as they are not really seperate to BRFC. However, at the moment, I think Dwayne Sport's only asset is BRFC, so would be pointless.
If the same think happened south of the river though, its unlikely that Bristol Sport would be made to cough up. Even more reason to hate them.
Doesn't really help seeing as I would probably need new shorts and bedding does it? But I get your point.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 6, 2017 13:03:53 GMT
A parent company may be held responsible for a subsiduary's liabilities if they are basically the same company. So Bristol Sport may get away with it, as it clearly has a seperate identity to City, but Dwayne Sports don't seem to do any commercial activity seperately to BRFC, so probably wouldn't. But it would be for a court to decide.
All a bit hypothetical
So if I munch my way through a cheese & oinion pasty at the Mem and get chronic bubblepoo later on that evening, BRFC aren't responsible? Is that what you're saying? Isn't catering outsourced? Your initial claim would then probably with the catering company. Mind you, food at a football match would probably come under the rule of caveat emptor :-)
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 6, 2017 13:06:30 GMT
So if I munch my way through a cheese & oinion pasty at the Mem and get chronic bubblepoo later on that evening, BRFC aren't responsible? Is that what you're saying? Isn't catering outsourced? Your initial claim would then probably with the catering company. Mind you, food at a football match would probably come under the rule of caveat emptor :-) Caveat emptor? My God it gets worse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2017 13:07:14 GMT
A parent company may be held responsible for a subsiduary's liabilities if they are basically the same company. So Bristol Sport may get away with it, as it clearly has a seperate identity to City, but Dwayne Sports don't seem to do any commercial activity seperately to BRFC, so probably wouldn't. But it would be for a court to decide.
All a bit hypothetical
So if I munch my way through a cheese & oinion pasty at the Mem and get chronic bubblepoo later on that evening, BRFC aren't responsible? Is that what you're saying? Chronic bubblepoo .......? Just spat out my coffee laughing !
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Feb 6, 2017 13:08:36 GMT
I'm not that intelligent to get most if any of that but I'm guessing the reason behind parent companies is for some sort of financial protection? A parent company may be held responsible for a subsiduary's liabilities if they are basically the same company. So Bristol Sport may get away with it, as it clearly has a seperate identity to City, but Dwayne Sports don't seem to do any commercial activity seperately to BRFC, so probably wouldn't. But it would be for a court to decide.
All a bit hypothetical
But if DS owned a training ground and a sports complex with Bars and hotel and restaurants and such would they then legitimately claim to be a different business/company to say a football club?
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Feb 6, 2017 13:13:32 GMT
A parent company may be held responsible for a subsiduary's liabilities if they are basically the same company. So Bristol Sport may get away with it, as it clearly has a seperate identity to City, but Dwayne Sports don't seem to do any commercial activity seperately to BRFC, so probably wouldn't. But it would be for a court to decide.
All a bit hypothetical
So if I munch my way through a cheese & oinion pasty at the Mem and get chronic bubblepoo later on that evening, BRFC aren't responsible? Is that what you're saying? Baggy you are talking crap again....
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 6, 2017 13:22:35 GMT
Isn't catering outsourced? Your initial claim would then probably with the catering company. Mind you, food at a football match would probably come under the rule of caveat emptor :-) Caveat emptor? My God it gets worse. Buyer beware. Or in layman's terms, you knew the risk so you only have yourself to blame.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 6, 2017 13:31:43 GMT
A parent company may be held responsible for a subsiduary's liabilities if they are basically the same company. So Bristol Sport may get away with it, as it clearly has a seperate identity to City, but Dwayne Sports don't seem to do any commercial activity seperately to BRFC, so probably wouldn't. But it would be for a court to decide.
All a bit hypothetical
But if DS owned a training ground and a sports complex with Bars and hotel and restaurants and such would they then legitimately claim to be a different business/company to say a football club? In the scenario of the cheese pasty Baggins asked then it depends on who owned and operated the bars and what the legal relationship was between DS and the operator. If it was outsourced then the operator is liable, if it was in house and run by another arm of DS then it would probably be DS. English Civil Law is interesting in that it is partly based on precidence but these cases tend to be a guide only (as Faggotygas stated above) in that few two cases are identical. It means that there is no sure way of knowing until a case is actually brought before the Courts, although it may give a good indication. Edit: In terms of the nature of the business, it may be interpreted as depending on the main business which at the moment it would presumably be sport. If DS took on catering and it became a major subsidiary then you could have a case. Reading his previous posts, Faggotygas is much more learned than me so hopefully can add or correct what I have said.
|
|