Parker not the knight in shining armour then

I increasingly think that Fenty is sick of bankrolling us and wants a way out so he's trying to put the onus on Parker. Then when things go wrong he can say it wasn't him who let the club fall apart, Parker was the majority shareholder.

I think those who say 'Surely they won't let the club collapse, they have money invested' are missing the point. You don't invest in a non-league football club, you keep it afloat. The money that they've put in has gone and they won't be seeing it again whether the club goes belly up or not. Fenty could call his loans in but there's no money to pay them - it'd mean administration or bankruptcy I'd assume.

[quote=153]

It is also worth remembering that JF has been withdrawing £162,500 each year paid into a pension fund (which grossed up for tax purposes are worth in excess of £250k for a 40% tax payer). Up to May 2010 he had received 3 of these payments and I believe there was another due in the last financial year (this will become apparent when the latest accounts are released). So potentially he has recouped £1m and the club still has loans of approximately £2m outstanding.

So, theoretically, if JF’s loans are repaid in full he will have lent £2m and recovered £3m over 7 years – not bad eh!


If the accounts show a pension charge of £162,500 then that is the gross payment into JF's pension fund.  Company contributions are paid gross not net.  If JF had loaned £2m and recovered £3m, this would have been noted way before now.

Do the accounts specifically relate to directors' pension costs?  My understanding is that no director receives any salary or pension.  The pension costs in the accounts may therefore be players / staff pensions.

Quoted from paulgtfc

[quote=153]

It is also worth remembering that JF has been withdrawing £162,500 each year paid into a pension fund (which grossed up for tax purposes are worth in excess of £250k for a 40% tax payer). Up to May 2010 he had received 3 of these payments and I believe there was another due in the last financial year (this will become apparent when the latest accounts are released). So potentially he has recouped £1m and the club still has loans of approximately £2m outstanding.

So, theoretically, if JF’s loans are repaid in full he will have lent £2m and recovered £3m over 7 years – not bad eh!


If the accounts show a pension charge of £162,500 then that is the gross payment into JF's pension fund.  Company contributions are paid gross not net.  If JF had loaned £2m and recovered £3m, this would have been noted way before now.

Do the accounts specifically relate to directors' pension costs?  My understanding is that no director receives any salary or pension.  The pension costs in the accounts may therefore be players / staff pensions.

thanks for that info paul, although i think you slightly misunderstand  what bigeasy is saying - IF it is JFs personal pension and IF parker repaid fenty'sloans in full, then fenty has put in £2million, but come away with £3million.

there's so many angles to this - soemone has argued that having loans puts fenty in a stronger position than if he had shares, but if fenty really does want to get out then parker has some cards to play with. equally it will be very difficult for fenty to go for the nuclear option and demand repayment of his loans a) because he's got tory- political considerations (imagine how it'll play in the media and to his reputation) and b) every man and his dog knows where he lives , which could make his life very uncomfortabl., parker is also considerably richer than fenty so doesn't have the pressure on him like fenty does

Quoted Text

Do the accounts specifically relate to directors' pension costs?  My understanding is that no director receives any salary or pension.  The pension costs in the accounts may therefore be players / staff pensions.

There is a specific reference to these payments in one years club accounts - and yes they are specific pension payments. So in theory they are paid into the pension fund gross. This is worth more because if JF had taken these payments as a salary, the gross cost to the club would have been the same but JF would have had tax deducted from the payment leaving him with a much smaller sum. So in order for him to come away with £162500 in his pocket net of tax the club would have had to make a gross payment in excess of around £250k.

One other thing to add - I think it could quite reasonably be assumed that MP is trying to "smoke the snake out of the grass" so he knows exactly what JF's position is, now JF has made public his "gripe". This adds weight to my comments made on here over the years that there are other potential directors/investors out there ready to step in, but not whilst JF still has the power of his loans/shareholding.  In short neither MP or anyone else is going to step in and sort out this unholy mess that JF has created, and see JF walk off into the sunlight having made a tidy profit. Far easier to let the club fail, and then buy it back from the administrators without the debt burden of JF's loans.

Somewhere in all that mess I'm sure a compromise will be found. But at this moment JF has twitched and fired the first shot, and MP has responded. It's very early days!

Quoted from thebigeasy

There is a specific reference to these payments in one years club accounts - and yes they are specific pension payments. So in theory they are paid into the pension fund gross. This is worth more because if JF had taken these payments as a salary, the gross cost to the club would have been the same but JF would have had tax deducted from the payment leaving him with a much smaller sum. So in order for him to come away with £162500 in his pocket net of tax the club would have had to make a gross payment in excess of around £250k.

One other thing to add - I think it could quite reasonably be assumed that MP is trying to "smoke the snake out of the grass" so he knows exactly what JF's position is, now JF has made public his "gripe". This adds weight to my comments made on here over the years that there are other potential directors/investors out there ready to step in, but not whilst JF still has the power of his loans/shareholding.  In short neither MP or anyone else is going to step in and sort out this unholy mess that JF has created, and see JF walk off into the sunlight having made a tidy profit. Far easier to let the club fail, and then buy it back from the administrators without the debt burden of JF's loans.

Somewhere in all that mess I'm sure a compromise will be found. But at this moment JF has twitched and fired the first shot, and MP has responded. It's very early days!

That and your tax comments are probably as good an explanation as we're going to get into this situation. Very plausible IMO.