Football Creditors Rule is unfair

The Premier League and Football League in England both operate the so-called 'football creditors rule'. This rule has the effect of bringing what the league describes as football creditors, including other clubs, the manager and the players, to the front of the queue for payment when a football club becomes insolvent. It is a topical concern at the moment because of a spate of clubs going bust this summer including Southend, which is in court to answer a winding up petition for the third time in a year, and Portsmouth, the first Premiership club to go into administration.

The FA and the Football League attempt to justify their preference for football creditors by saying that they are trying to avoid a domino effect whereby the unpaid debts of one club, transfer moneys for instance, bring down another club and so on. There is some truth in this but football is by no means the only business where this is a likely scenario. Small builders are in constant danger of being let down by their debtors whilst, at the other end of the scale, one bank failure could bring down a whole banking house of cards. Why should there be one rule for football clubs and another rule for the rest of us?

The fact is that there is no such rule in law and HMRC, an unlikely hero in business, has brought a writ against the Premier League to prevent the Football Creditors Rule from being put into effect in the case of Portsmouth. Apparently the HMRC view is that the rule is 'unlawful'. It is bad enough when international sporting bodies such as FIFA and the IOC set themselves up as being above the law, and tax laws in particular, but it would be a disgrace if domestic associations could abuse their control of high profile sports to do the same.

The real injustice, of course, is that the main football creditor is usually the wages of the players. In the Premiership the payrolls are spectacularly out of proportion to ordinary life. Can anyone justify making those astronomical sums a special case whilst the taxes that the clubs and their players owe to the rest of us go unpaid?

No accounts, no mortgage

The FSA began its review of the mortgage market in the UK in 2005 and has now published its latest report on 'Responsible lending'. It recommends that anyone applying for a mortgage in future must be able to prove their income which will mean that self-employed people will need to produce accounts if they want to buy a home.

The alarming thing for anyone who is interested in the property market is the proportion of mortgages that have been self-certified; 45% over the period from 2005 - 2010 peaking at over 50% in 2008 and still at 43% in the first quarter of this year. If the FSA's proposals have the effect of excluding over 40% of buyers from the property market then we may see another drop in house prices as predicted by RICS for more immediate reasons.

The potential effect on the property market seems to be of less concern to the FSA than the need to ensure that there really is some substance behind the assessments that mortgage lenders carry out on borrowers. The report states that the sources of evidence for the assessment should be in writing, from an independent source and should be for a period long enough to cover fluctuations in income "and we would certainly not expect indirect evidence, such as providing headed paper or business cards, to be taken as verification of income". It may be possible that an annotated series of bank statements would meet these criteria but many borrowers will find that the only persuasive evidence will be properly prepared accounts, especially as the FSA report specifically excludes 'declarations of affordability' even if they are signed by an accountant. By inference the FSA is recommending that HMRC extends the pilot scheme which it ran last year that allowed lenders to check the details of a mortgage application against HMRC's own information. Anxious to close all loopholes the FSA also insists that 'fast-track' mortgage applications should have income verification.

The FSA believes that "it is possible for everyone to provide evidence of their income". There may be an element of judgement in that statement whereby 'everyone' actually means 'everyone who should be trusted with a mortgage' but it is true that everybody can learn to keep proper books of account if they do a simple course in bookkeeping like those available from the Accounting and Bookkeeping College.