View more on these topics

Premiership footballers pursue advisers over £14m Ucis losses

Money-Currency-UK-20-note-480.jpg

Some 12 Premier League footballers are pursuing their financial advisers for total losses of £14m after being advised to invest in unregulated collective investment schemes.

Claims management firm Rebus Investment Solutions is representing the footballers and says over 200 players have invested over £1bn in Ucis funds in total over the last 15 years.

The largest single investment in Ucis by a footballer was £12m.

Rebus says the footballers were all advised by different advisers and were not made aware of the risks involved in the schemes. The claims firm also points the finger at the footballers’ agents for taking payments from advisers for signing players up to certain schemes.

Rebus head of client relations Martin Taylor says: “We are currently dealing with a number of premiership and ex-premiership footballers who are now facing financial ruin as a result of complex investment schemes which they were mis-sold and we think this is just the tip of the iceberg. What’s clear from the data we have collated is that premiership footballers have invested in these schemes on a huge scale over the past 15 years.

“Yet, in many cases, players were not made fully aware of the risks involved or the potential costs. Many professional advisers have not fulfilled their obligations when recommending these and, if that is proved to be the case, investors have a right to claim compensation. We are urging any footballers who believe they were mis-sold to come forward.”

Top 8 clubs by player investment:

Manchester United

Everton

Liverpool

Manchester City

Chelsea

West Ham

Newcastle

Tottenham

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 20 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. So, after having lost such a substantial amount of money the footballers have signed up to a CMC!

    Presumably the CMC will be acting as the players agent this time. Usual fee for this type of service is 25%. Nice work on 14,000,000.

  2. There is always the FSCS as IFA’s are always happy to pay for others

  3. I have emails from the FSA in connection with a well-known property UCIS which I reported for breaches of authorisation rules back in 2009 and 2010 – needless to say I have emails from the FSA stating that in their opinion there were no breaches as long as they had an appropriate risk warning stating that they don’t give advice.

    You would have thought things had improved with the regulation of unregulated sites and breaches of the financial services marking act then I’m afraid you’d be disappointed. The reasons why I say this is reported a lead generation side that had no FCA authorisation and should not be marketing financials services at all according to FSMA2000 but according to the FCA today they don’t need authorisation.

    If we can’t even rely on our regulator to enforce authorisation rules then what hope is there in providing any customer protection. The government set up the FSA and now the FCA to protect consumers and I for one am totally fed up of paying out FSCS fees the products that I never sold. If these claims are successful and these advisers go bust and am afraid to say that they should not be allowed to claim on the FSCS as these advisers operating and giving advice on unregulated products.

    I hope advisers who remain in the industry club together to take action against the regulator if adviser fee are increased due to unregulated activities. The regulator cannot say that they did not know as they were warned on a number of occasions.

    Sorry for the spelling mistakes guys that I’m so bloody angry and I now get what some of the people on here have been saying that the regulator is totally ill-equipped to regulate!!

    If we going to have rules they need to be enforced

  4. Should be sueing the agents first surely ?

  5. RegulatorSaurusRex 4th April 2013 at 11:05 pm

    Silly Billies all round.

  6. GREEDY silly billies

  7. Cheque books at the ready comrades…..

    I think we should just cut out the middleman (FSCS) and make our cheques payable to ‘Man U/ Account in the name of…..’ so the thicko player can write his name in the space…. assuming he can WRITE his name in the space provided

  8. Richard Whitehill 5th April 2013 at 10:41 am

    I think there are some respondents on here who seem to be missing the point – worryingly! UCIS investments, being ‘unregulated’ are not covered by the FSCS at all. This is just one of the many reasons why they are intrinsically classed as being high risk products – irrespective of the level of risk being taken within the investment itself. The investment scheme may, or may not, be high risk at its core, but the lack of authorisation means there is no ethical oversight, liquidity requirement, or (supposed) assurance of good management and honesty.

    I do not suggest for one second that FSA authorisation guarantees these things (see Arch Cru), but there is a clear line as to where the protection starts and stops.

    I do not support the CMCs either, but if someone has been duped then they should be entitled to their day in court. Whether UCIS are suitable investments for these individuals is entirely down to personal circumstances – which none of us can second guess. Lets just hope the IFAs involved understood what they were recommending and followed the correct (and actually very stringent) regulatory procedure to ensure the investments were suitable.

  9. “…facing financial ruin”…….really? A premiership footballers earns the average annual income in a week/month.

    They have absolutely no sympathy from me.

  10. they are greedy greedy silly billies, although i don’t suppose the average premiership footballer is there on their academic credentials. It just shows you there are some predetors out there to prey on the week of mind!

  11. Anonymous | 5 Apr 2013 10:41 am

    If they were given advice by an authorised adviser I am afraid they are.

    The problem here is why should someone investing in a UCIS have the opportunity to make a claim to the FSCS when someone who invests in a business opportunity doesn’t?

  12. I’m afraid you’re not correct unfortunately the company giving advice is authorised and regulated and although the investment is unregulated it is the firm who is giving you advice that is regulated and therefore opens up a claim on the FSCS.

    This is one of the main reasons why I get so vocal about UCIS and also unregulated referral sites as it is we who remain in the industry who end up paying for these people’s mistakes.

    I’ve just spent a very long time arguing about referral site with the FCA and unfortunately the regulator is still not cracking down on these types of sites which ultimately have connections with UCIS and some IFA’s who are willing to give advice in this area.

    There does need to be a line drawn somewhere and I hope that some judge somewhere along the line rules that UCIS cannot claim on the FSCS.

    This whole area of unregulated products and unregulated websites is a complete and utter mess surely what is needed is a bit of common sense!

    You’re either regulated or you’re not!!!!!!!

    One has compensation the other doesn’t!!!

  13. Not too sure how much they would actually get back though as the maximum FSCS payout for investments is £50k – it would be interesting to see if Rebus has made it clear to these investors what the chances of them getting their money back are!

  14. I recently persuaded an previously enthusiastic IFA that this this type of investment might not be good for professional footballers.

    At least one own goal prevented!

  15. I am with Peter | 5 Apr 2013 12:09 pm on this and as Sean | 5 Apr 2013 11:49 am is how it SHOULD be and if the FCA don’t realise that, then they will soon when there are no IFAs left as we’re forced by the FSCS to give generic information only on regulated products, just as the MES do so that we are not forced to keep paying for the failure of UNREGULATED products and direct sales failures.

  16. Does anyone really believe that these footballers had any discussion on these investments? They will have left everything to their agents and accountants to sort out and then just signed the paperwork! Any IFA dealing with a footballer probably never sees them and just gets told what to do.Anyway by their very nature footballers on such high earnings are some of the few people who can handle very high risk! Having said that even they cannot be stupid enough to invest more than 10% in any one investment…..on second thoughts! I seriously hope they fail in his action as it will all have been done in the name of tax saving and greed.

  17. This would surely be the only way west ham would get into the top 6 of the premiership!!

  18. Chaps

    You are all missing the point. FSCS is only if the advisory firm is bust, FOS is for live firms.

    But, if you are a stinking rich footballer with clever lawyers you’d just sue the adviser in open court. Hope they have PII or they are stuffed.

  19. Jon R | 7 Apr 2013 9:30 pm

    Looking at the figures involved I am pretty sure they will end up bust.

  20. The headline is simply wrong.

    Their is no “premiership” and hasn’t been since it became the English Premier League, several years ago.

    The only Premiership left is in rugby union.

Leave a comment