Old board in below minimum wage reports

It's a challenge I admit. Saving some for after the game.

I wonder what fine the club had to pay over this issue?

What is galling for me warehamgas is that when a few of us criticised the old regime for the way they were running Rovers we were told we were "board haters" with a "hidden agenda". In fact, most of us with experience in business were simply trying to point out that there was a better way to go and we wanted Nick Higgs to adopt a more professional approach in the best interests of Rovers. So when something like this minimum wage issue comes up and fans are very quick to hurl abuse at the old board it makes me wonder why, at the time, so many refused to admit what was staring them in the face when all the signs were there if you opened your eyes.

And I'm afraid the situation today is similar. I understand it is difficult for many fans to reconcile the difference between debt and equity but basically when money is put into a football club as debt it remains the property of the owners not the football club and the owners are entitled to charge interest if they wish. Whereas with equity the money becomes the property of the football club and the owners only get a return if the club is profitable and they can take a dividend or if the club is successful and the shares have a value when the club is sold.

Steve Hamer's interview was very enlightening because he confirmed that Dwane Sports were charging interest on their loan and he said they did not put money into Rovers as equity because if they did it would be "irrecoverable". In other words they do expect to recover the interest which is racking up in Rovers accounts at the rate of about £14 000 per week. Steve said the interest was "notional" which is not strictly true because if it was notional it would not show in the audited accounts and it would not be recoverable. This interest is an overhead for Rovers when calculating a break even figure and the money supplied via loan does not count towards turnover for FFP / SCMP purposes so, compared to many other lower league clubs where the owners subscribe for equity or make donations, we are at a disadvantage.

You mention Scunthorpe United and their 2016 accounts show the owner invested  £3.78 million into the club as share capital which gave them a big advantage in playing budget terms. And with Rochdale I have a personal anecdote from many years ago when I was talking to their Chairman about financing and he told me that a very well known TV comedy duo had offered to put money into their club but, he said after a pause, "they wanted to take a charge over our ground" followed by him spluttering with laughter. Most people in the game, including Steve Hamer I expect, are fully aware that owning a club is an indulgence you have to be prepared to pay for and to think you can charge yourself interest and use the assets to secure your debts is "just not football". 

According to the press this is for the period ending in "early" 2016, assuming that relates to the tax year ending in April 2016, then it looks like the under payment relates to the period including after the Al-Qadi's took over ownership of the club in Feb 2016. I'm not sure the blame can be laid solely at the old owners doors, as shouldn't the new owners have ensured everything was in order, minimum payment wise, at the end of the tax year in April 2016.

When you buy someone’s home do you pay up their debts afterwards with your own cash? Or do you ensure your payments are all correct and up to date? Oh.....

We might be. But let's wait until they are proven guilty before putting the boot in.

How can you mislead people by simply pointing out that my op was censored?
The original title reflected the mirror online article i read accurately.

If your already on the minimum wage its probably best not to be underpaid at all.

No but the media adds the speculation. It is up to us to put a stop to it or we let it escalate. .