Yesterday afternoon the Football Club was contacted by the Echo newspaper with a series of questions for Chairman Ron Martin regarding the HM Revenue and Customs position.
Those questions were answered via email and are outlined below with Mr Martin's responses. For whatever reason the Echo has chosen not to publish those answers in full but for clarity to the Club's supporters it was felt beneficial to print those in full on our website.
1. What has the effect been on Ron personally?
None - it's an irritation but does not distract me from the task in hand. My focus is entirely on the bigger picture and delivering success to Southend United.
2. Effect on the players, and club as a whole?
The players are professional and equally remain focused on winning games. They too know what this Club's future plans hold of which I have reassured them. After all, if there was a fundamental problem, I wouldn't have paid the £2.15m but instead 'done a Crystal Palace'.
3. Effect on the support received from fans, is it waning?
Our supporters are not stupid. They can see what's going on behind the scenes and again, had the debt of £2.15m not been discharged, one could understand their fears - but it was paid, as always promised.
4. Is this distracting efforts from the football, and also the planning for the new stadium?
No
5. When does he hope to have the issue with HMRC and the courts resolved?
These issues are a matter of process. We have appealed HMRC's claims and it may be a matter for the Tribunals Service which is an independent body - thank goodness.
6. Why did he not pay the full amount after the last hearing and wait for a tax rebate in April on any monies owed?
We did. We subsequently disputed, primarily, surcharges ie penalty payments applied to the debt. It should be known that the Club had a similar case in 2006 where surcharges were applied. In that instance the Club appealed and won. This case is no different.
7. Does he dispute HMRC's claim that payments were missed and the reasons for the dispute?
No payments were missed. The Club quite rightly exercised 'set off' which it is entitled to do in respect of months 7 and 8. Month 9 was paid on time. The Club only needed to set off months 7 and 8 to restore the position.
8. How does he feel about the club being described in court as a 'habitual defaulter'?
It's a dramatic inflammatory term used by HMRC barristers in an attempt to persuade the judge. Let's face it, HMRC have not been disadvantaged in any way whatsoever. The Club has paid every penny and now is only disputing inappropriate penalties. In an administration HMRC rarely receive anything. In Leeds United's case HMRC lost around £6m and we must await the outcome of Portsmouth to see whether they recover the purported amount £12m owed. HMRC suffered similarly following the administration of Luton (twice) together with Rotherham and I doubt whether HMRC will recover much following Crystal Palace's administration.
I repeat Southend United have paid every penny. I, and many others, may not like the aggression which endangers football clubs - believing that clubs are at the heart of the community. That said, I also recognise HMRC have a job to do which has been made harder by the recession. I just wish there could be a little more understanding - we do an enormous amount of good work which equally needs to be protected.
