Authors: Julie Gingell & Simon Walsh

It was widely reported last week that Unilever, the maker of Marmite, took steps to protect its brand by threatening legal action against the British National Party to stop it from using a jar of Marmite in its party political broadcasts.

The jar of spread appeared in a BNP video which featured on its website. Nick Griffin claimed that the BNP had not been responsible for this because it had, allegedly, been inserted by “one of the people to whom [the Party] had given the broadcast to review” However, he went on to indicate that the jar of Marmite had been added to the broadcast in response to Marmite’s “the Love Party and the Hate Party” advertising campaign which has been running on television, radio and the internet. The BNP claim that the “Hate Party” was based on itself. Mr Griffin said, “Although we are not responsible for whoever it was who inserted the Marmite jars into the internet version of the broadcast, we do see the amusing side, quite simply if you start a spoof you should expect to get spoofed”.

Unilever stated, “Neither Marmite nor any other Unilever brand are aligned to any political party. We are currently initiating injunction proceedings against the BNP to remove the Marmite jar from the online broadcast and prevent them from using it in future”.

The video clip has now been removed from the BNP website but is still available on YouTube.

The BNP was involved in a similar controversy back in March 2009 when the Manic Street Preachers’ hit “If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next” was played over some of its web content. After pressure was applied by the Manic’s record label, Sony, the song was removed with the BNP claiming the song had been mistakenly streamed from the site.

Brand reputation is everything and in today’s high speed digital economy, you can see why Sony and Unilever were quick to move against what they understood to be infringements of their intellectual property rights. Years of investment in PR and brand development can be wiped out if your product/brand becomes associated with an offering that is perceived to be unfavorable. Both incidents demonstrate the importance of policing the use of your brands and products, especially on the internet, to ensure that they are not used for an unauthorised purpose.

Author: Chris Alexander

The Ministry of Justice has announced that the proposed increase in the rent threshold for assured shorthold tenancies is to be delayed until October.  

Currently, tenancies with a rent in excess of £25,000 per annum are excluded from the assured shorthold regime. The proposal to increase this threshold to £100,000 was announced in February and was due to be implemented this month.  It was intended to apply to existing as well as new tenancies, which would put onerous obligations upon landlords of tenancies that are currently excluded, to comply with the deposit protection requirements for assured shorthold tenancies within a short window.  As many assured shorthold landlords have found out to their cost since the deposit protection schemes were introduced in 2008. Non compliance can prove to be an expensive mistake for landlords, with the tenants being able to claim three times the value of the deposit from them.

Author: Guy Thomas

It’s been reported by the BBC that Portsmouth’s Administrators have sent out a summary of its financial position to its creditors.

The Administrators have set out a list of alternative proposals for the creditors to vote on (broadly to decide how the Administration should come to an end) and published the time and place of the creditors meeting at which the creditors will vote (11am, 6th May at Fratton Park).

The report highlights an eye watering debt of over £108million. This could in limited circumstances even rise to £119 million. That’s just under a third more then initially estimated. Unsurprisingly this has been widely reported (and condemned).

Although worthy of condemnation, such reports and the creditors who read them may not immediately see one of the possible knock on effects of the behemoth in front of them.

Andrew Andronikou, the club’s administrator, has reportedly sought to damped down any response by commenting “I do not believe that the figures will come as a surprise to anyone who has been interested in buying the club,”

Andronikou went on to say that “When they [a potential buyer] do due diligence it is there for them to see. So, for that reason, the figures are vastly different from what has been reported.”

It is true that these huge figures do help highlight one of the many questions arising out this Administration.

Just what were the Directors and owners playing at, running up such a gargantuan liability for the club?

When exactly did they “know” the club was bust? Or when should they have “known”.

When you compare staff costs to the gross income then it is more then a little baffling how the clubs directors could have continued on without having taken advice as to whether the club was trading whilst insolvent. Hopefully the nature and detail of that advice (if any was given) will become clear after any further investigations have taken place.

No doubt all will become clearer, either as a result of any investigations of the Administrators (or as a result of BiS investigation into the directors. BiS is the latest funky, yet pointless name change for the old DTI or Department of Trade and Industry.

It is sad to see that, given the announced timetable it looks unlikely that the FA will approve Portsmouth’s delayed application for a Uefa licence in time for Pompey to take up their Europa League place.

One strong indication from the accounts, that Pompey were punching above their weight, is set out in the sections concerning the costs of player transfers / loans and the costs charged for lending money to the club.

Ignoring the millions that appear to have already been paid out to them before the Administration, over 15 football agents, including Pini Zahavi (the Tel Aviv based “transfer svengali”), are owed over £9 million.  A further £38.2m is due to three previous owners in the form of loans and over £4 million to trade creditors.

Balram Chainrai, the present owner, is owed £14 million, he claims his loan is secured on Fratton Park but this security has previously been queried by some creditors.

Andronikou has said “We now have a business plan in place that is a projected target over the next three to five years to pay back the creditors,”….”The creditors will get a percentage of their debts back over a number of years, rather than all in one go.”

At the proposed creditors meeting on May 6, a number of different proposals will be voted upon. In particular the offer of a creditors’ voluntary arrangement [CVA], which is essential if the club is to exit administration, will be decided upon. It may be that this vote needs to be approved before the FA will allow the Club to be listed as one of the clubs requiring a Uefa Licence.

Nothing has been set in stone but it is anticipated the dividend to be offered to creditors at the meeting (if they accept) will be in the region of 25-30 pence in the pound.

There is no official word yet as to how HMRC intend to vote but it has previously been well reported that they usually oppose football CVA’s (as a reflection of their dislike of the special status “football creditors” hold in the Administrations of football clubs).

In light of the above, it will be a happy co-incidence (for any supporters of a CVA proposal) if one by-product of the recently increased debt total (from prior reports of c. £60million) to the current c£109 level is that any opposition from HMRC will not be enough (on their own) to defeat the CVA proposal.

Without a successful vote by 75% of the unsecured creditors the CVA will fail and the club will likely be docked further points in the Championships next season.

Happy voting!

Author: Nikki Petken

Coca Cola have been criticised this week for an advertisement that appeared to encourage employees to throw “sickies”.

The advert for Glaceau Vitamin Water (a brand owned by Coca Cola) included the wording that “If you’ve had to use sick days because you’ve actually been sick, then you’re seriously missing out”.

Amusing, but small business groups were not impressed by the tongue in cheek advertising and they do have a valid point.

“Pulling or throwing a sickie” is still an accepted culture amongst workforces yet employee absence costs the economy almost £12 billion a year in lost working days. With the warm weather approaching it is important businesses review their absence management to ensure they distinguish those that are genuinely ill and for those that demonstrate a suspicious pattern of absence they are able to nip it in the bud. Employers will also soon receive the new fit notes, one of the governments strategies to tackle long term sickness absence. For a brief overview see our recent stay alert at by clicking here.

Author: Chris Cook

A recently published survey of UK workers in hygiene company SCA has uncovered that a fifth of the workforce will not take a day off work even when they are genuinely sick.  It was also revealed that 26.2% will call in sick, but are nervous about doing this due to their line managers’ and colleagues’ reaction in the past when they were ill.  This is likely to be typical of most businesses across the UK.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has suggested that in the current economic downturn, workers are more likely to wish to go to work when they are unwell.  This is because of concern that their absence will be viewed as a lack of commitment to their job.  However, it is important for workers who are genuinely unwell to consider the effect of coming into work on the rest of the workforce.  This in turn is likely to be counterproductive for employers in spreading illness to other members of staff, in turn leading to a decline in performance of the business as a whole through its employees having difficulties concentrating, making mistakes and lowering the standard of its service to customers.

Consequently managers are advised to be observant if an employee at work might be unwell, and if necessary tell them to go home to recuperate.