Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » When tax is too taxing.

When tax is too taxing.

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Go down  Message [Page 5 of 5]

121When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Thu Mar 12 2020, 13:36

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
There are two components here, Sluffy:


  1. The debt due to Ken Anderson
  2. The security for the debt due to Ken Anderson.


Lets take the second first.

Blumarble's loan (£4m plus interest not £5m) was secured in several ways which are set out in the files of each of the relevant companies providing the security and setting out the nature of that security.

The BWFC file sets them out in charges numbered 58 and 59.

At or about the same time as BM were paid off, two new charges/securities were created in BWFC numbered 60 and 61 taking the total number of outstanding charges on BWFC to 9. The earliest dates back to 2002.

There's a similar situation in Burnden Leisure.

There are several assets involved in the charges and there will also be a pecking order where an asset is charged to more than one person. i.e. whose charge gets first dibs.

The security for Ken Anderson's loan is numbered 61 in BWFC, number 23 in Burnden Leisure, number 8 in Bolton Whites Hotel, number 15 in Bolton Sporting Ventures and number 13 in Bolton Sports Village.

All of these charges were security for the money KA had borrowed off ED to pay off Blumarble which, with discounted interest, would have been c. £4.5m.

But that wasn't all he borrowed off ED. KA says it was £7.5m and I believe him. I don't think he could have kept the club afloat without it prior to the sale of Gary Madine in January 2018.

I think ED had lent him £2.5m as part of an arrangement made with KA in March 2016 and handed  over by ED between July and December 2017.

I also don't think the £4.5m came to the club but was settled direct to Blumarble, possibly via ED's lawyers. The figure of £5m may also include some other outstanding bills and expenses.

The administrator's explanation of all this is not satisfactory in my view and appears to rely on the fact that a journal entry had not been put through the books to reflect what had happened.

Whichever way you look at it, the amounts said to be owed to creditors in total or to KA individually do not stack up and only start to make sense when adjusted to reflect KA's claim, which incidentally is also borne out by what EDT claimed was owed to them.

Given that scenario, its easy to see why KA and his legal team brought the hotel into the equation.

122When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Thu Mar 12 2020, 14:16

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Who would live in a house like this?



 When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 23E2389200000578-2865950-image-m-12_1418086476963



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Sat Mar 14 2020, 14:27; edited 1 time in total

123When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Thu Mar 12 2020, 14:51

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:There are two components here, Sluffy:


  1. The debt due to Ken Anderson
  2. The security for the debt due to Ken Anderson.


Lets take the second first.

Blumarble's loan (£4m plus interest not £5m) was secured in several ways which are set out in the files of each of the relevant companies providing the security and setting out the nature of that security.

The BWFC file sets them out in charges numbered 58 and 59.

At or about the same time as BM were paid off, two new charges/securities were created in BWFC numbered 60 and 61 taking the total number of outstanding charges on BWFC to 9. The earliest dates back to 2002.

There's a similar situation in Burnden Leisure.

There are several assets involved in the charges and there will also be a pecking order where an asset is charged to more than one person. i.e. whose charge gets first dibs.

The security for Ken Anderson's loan is numbered 61 in BWFC, number 23 in Burnden Leisure, number 8 in Bolton Whites Hotel, number 15 in Bolton Sporting Ventures and number 13 in Bolton Sports Village.

All of these charges were security for the money KA had borrowed off ED to pay off Blumarble which, with discounted interest, would have been c. £4.5m.

But that wasn't all he borrowed off ED. KA says it was £7.5m and I believe him. I don't think he could have kept the club afloat without it prior to the sale of Gary Madine in January 2018.

I think ED had lent him £2.5m as part of an arrangement made with KA in March 2016 and handed  over by ED between July and December 2017.

I also don't think the £4.5m came to the club but was settled direct to Blumarble, possibly via ED's lawyers. The figure of £5m may also include some other outstanding bills and expenses.

The administrator's explanation of all this is not satisfactory in my view and appears to rely on the fact that a journal entry had not been put through the books to reflect what had happened.

Whichever way you look at it, the amounts said to be owed to creditors in total or to KA individually do not stack up and only start to make sense when adjusted to reflect KA's claim, which incidentally is also borne out by what EDT claimed was owed to them.

Given that scenario, its easy to see why KA and his legal team brought the hotel into the equation.

Thanks for the reply.

I'm not disputing that the charges are on the books as you have listed, what I questioned is how can you secure against assets that have already been secured against up to their maximum value already shown in the accounts based on professional valuations?

Maybe you can - which answers my question but I was clearly under the belief that you couldn't?

If Rubins ruled out the two loans of £2.5m and £5m - which apparently you imply they did, then how come they stated that Anderson did indeed have secured creditor status but for only £1.6m?  It can't be ruled out yet shown as a sum outstanding to him at the same time can it?

I don't doubt Eddie loaned Ken the £7.5m and I don't doubt it was used to pay off BM and keep the club running but I question how this £7.5m was abled to be secured on a business that appeared not to have assets to the value free of having charges already set against them?

Maybe that is fine whilst the business is trading but when it slips into insolvency then the assets of it are finite and obviously there is a pecking order to who is paid until the assets are no more to satisfy the rest.

To my mind Ken was a secured creditor but only for what Rubins deemed was available to be secured against the assets available after the BM loan was settled, which was just the £1.6m.

Or looking at it another way, if BM wasn't settled and Eddie had not loaned Ken the £5m to do so, then BM would only have received £1.6m from the Administrator because the secured creditors total of all those who registered a charge was greater than the assets at insolvency.

Tbh I'm not really deeply concerned anymore as a decision as been made and everyone has since accepted it.  The net result to my mind was that Eddie sold the club to Holdsworth for reasons known unto himself, knowing Holdsworth could not fund the club.  Eddie personally financed the club behind the scenes and ultimately paid off the £5m shortfall for running costs he had left when selling to Holdsworth, which brought BM into the picture.  So in a sense balance was achieved as if he had bunged in the £5m in the first place non of the shite that followed would probably have happened.

I believe Ken did a marvellous attempt at keeping the club afloat for the amount of time he did and was never here to put his personal wealth at stake.  I don't believe he raped and pillaged the club at all and whatever he took out of it was reasonable it terms of the football world.

Anderson didn't benefit from the £7.5m loans from Eddie, the money went into the club to keep it going.

So in conclusion Eddie was the benefactor that he was although sadly Iles and many others don't seem to recognise how much he truly was, Anderson didn't rape and pillage the club, nor gain excessively from it like Iles and most everyone else believed he had and Holdsworth who clearly was the one to screw the club is still seen by Iles the ST and most others to be a hero.

124When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Thu Mar 12 2020, 16:00

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Sluffy wrote:
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:There are two components here, Sluffy:


  1. The debt due to Ken Anderson
  2. The security for the debt due to Ken Anderson.


.

Thanks for the reply.

I'm not disputing that the charges are on the books as you have listed, what I questioned is how can you secure against assets that have already been secured against up to their maximum value already shown in the accounts based on professional valuations?

Security is taken against assets in the hope that, if all else fails, the lender can get his money back by the sale of the assets. But assets go up and down in value and when push comes to shove they sometimes are worth less than they cost or less than they were last valued at. In the case of BWFC the fixed assets were in the books at cost less depreciation which was, as it happens, substantially higher than the loans secured against them.

Maybe you can - which answers my question but I was clearly under the belief that you couldn't.

If Rubins ruled out the two loans of £2.5m and £5m - which apparently you imply they did, then how come they stated that Anderson did indeed have secured creditor status but for only £1.6m?  It can't be ruled out yet shown as a sum outstanding to him at the same time can it?

I don't think Rubins ruled out the £5m loan. They simply ignored it and treated the security charge as being against the £2.5m loan.

I also suspect that KA took some money out after the sale of Madine as a fee/commission and a reward for maintaining Championship status and that that was treated by Rubins, not as a fee, but as a reduction of the £2.5m. This was also likely to be the subject of dispute between KA and Rubins

I don't doubt Eddie loaned Ken the £7.5m and I don't doubt it was used to pay off BM and keep the club running but I question how this £7.5m was abled to be secured on a business that appeared not to have assets to the value free of having charges already set against them?

The fixed assets were in the books of BWFC at a depreciated cost of £26.8m in June2017. Well in excess of the loans secured against them at book value

Maybe that is fine whilst the business is trading but when it slips into insolvency then the assets of it are finite and obviously there is a pecking order to who is paid until the assets are no more to satisfy the rest.

To my mind Ken was a secured creditor but only for what Rubins deemed was available to be secured against the assets available after the BM loan was settled, which was just the £1.6m.

Or looking at it another way, if BM wasn't settled and Eddie had not loaned Ken the £5m to do so, then BM would only have received £1.6m from the Administrator because the secured creditors total of all those who registered a charge was greater than the assets at insolvency.

No, for the reasons explained above

Tbh I'm not really deeply concerned anymore as a decision as been made and everyone has since accepted it.  The net result to my mind was that Eddie sold the club to Holdsworth for reasons known unto himself, knowing Holdsworth could not fund the club.  Eddie personally financed the club behind the scenes and ultimately paid off the £5m shortfall for running costs he had left when selling to Holdsworth, which brought BM into the picture.  So in a sense balance was achieved as if he had bunged in the £5m in the first place non of the shite that followed would probably have happened.

He didn't really sell the club at all, least of all to Holdsworth. ED was between a rock and a hard place and prepared for administration. I expect ED would have known that Holdsworth was going to be of no help but Ken Anderson was a different proposition. Whatever his previous reputation, he was experienced in handling insolvency situations and offered a chance of avoiding immediate administration whilst buying more time to try to get someone with deeper pockets to come in. ED  was ready to chuck in another £2.5m to help it happen. It would have cost nearly as much to put it into admin.

Selling for a quid isn't selling, its giving it away and, although it must have nearly broke his heart, it was the best he could make of a bad job.

I believe Ken did a marvellous attempt at keeping the club afloat for the amount of time he did and was never here to put his personal wealth at stake.  I don't believe he raped and pillaged the club at all and whatever he took out of it was reasonable it terms of the football world.

Anderson didn't benefit from the £7.5m loans from Eddie, the money went into the club to keep it going
.

Agreed. I don't believe he took out the £525K that proved to his many detractors that he was a rogue. That was really part of the cost of buying out Holdsworth but I do think he took out a larger amount in 2018. Small compared to what the likes of Ben Amos cost the club but a lot of money if you were one of the small businesses that ended up having to write off 2/3rds of their debt.

So in conclusion Eddie was the benefactor that he was although sadly Iles and many others don't seem to recognise how much he truly was, Anderson didn't rape and pillage the club, nor gain excessively from it like Iles and most everyone else believed he had and Holdsworth who clearly was the one to screw the club is still seen by Iles the ST and most others to be a hero.

Agreed again. Iles, the BN and the ST were worse than clueless throughout and I very much doubt that any of them have learned much if anything throughout the entire process.

125When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Fri Mar 13 2020, 00:00

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
Thanks Bob for shining light most of the things I was unsure/just plain wrong about.

There are one or two minor things I still have queries about but nothing that unduly bothers me.

We both have arrived at the same conclusions to each other and have be consistent in what we have been saying throughout Anderson's tenure even though we've both become pariah's and frequently abused for doing so.

I agree with you totally that Iles, the ST and the vast bulk of our fans have learned virtually nothing over this time and still believe Anderson to be the Devil.

They still can't 'get' that the club loses money (even now) and it is not the job or legal responsibility of the owner to cover the losses.

If FV/Sharon ever decides that she can't make the club financially viable as she believes she can, we will simply go through the whole process again of tyre kickers looking to buy the club on the cheap, nutjobs like Bassini appearing, pub talk about (Ron) Billionaires wanting to buy us and a queue of worried staff and suppliers wondering if they are going to be paid.

At least we won't have self centred millionaires like Wheater organising unofficial strikes to get HIS wages when the club was clearly insolvent at the time - and knowing full well that they would ultimately be paid in full eventually anyway whilst most others most certainly wouldn't be!

126When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Fri Mar 13 2020, 08:09

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
I think its interesting, Sluffy, that Iles and the BN have never really got close to reporting the facts in any kind of objective or considered way and, as I have said before, I think that goes back a long way.

If you had any understanding at all of the financial facts of life at BWFC, it would be quite impossible to claim that the Reebok stadium was funded by Gordon Hargreaves (Iles) or that the funds from the sale of Nicholas Anelka weren't re-invested (Glendinning).

No, these falsehoods stem from a total mismatch between what had actually happened at BWFC and empty-headed gossip circulating in the corridors of BN HQ almost throughout the Davies era. The national newspapers were every bit as bad but they weren't as close to the action and have short attention spans. Whose really interested in Bolton Wanderers apart from a few thousand Bolton Wanderers supporters?

I suspect that you are right about David Wheater and that the strike in the summer of 2018 was stoked up by pea-brained pillocks without a thought in their heads of the long-term damage it might have on creditors or the more modestly paid and loyal staff of BWFC

But, if we return to the start of this thread, lets just take another short look at what's happening at FGR, one of our probable opponents next season. The t-shirt issuing, ripped jeans-wearing, mutton dressed as lamb millionaire, Dale Vince, is constantly in the media on his self-sacrificing 'mission' but which newspaper has published the fact that over the last nine years Vince's taxpayer-subsidised Ecotricity Group has reported losses of £22m whilst Vince has spent £13.5m on Forest Green Rovers and drawn another £9m in interest-free loans to himself?

Its Friday the thirteenth today, so lets hope us oldies can avoid COVID-19 a bit longer. I've been self-isolating from BSE-15 all season.

127When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Fri Mar 13 2020, 08:35

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I wish someone would isolate this thread before i die of boredom  Razz

128When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Fri Mar 13 2020, 10:43

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:I think its interesting, Sluffy, that Iles and the BN have never really got close to reporting the facts in any kind of objective or considered way and, as I have said before, I think that goes back a long way.

If you had any understanding at all of the financial facts of life at BWFC, it would be quite impossible to claim that the Reebok stadium was funded by Gordon Hargreaves (Iles) or that the funds from the sale of Nicholas Anelka weren't re-invested (Glendinning).

No, these falsehoods stem from a total mismatch between what had actually happened at BWFC and empty-headed gossip circulating in the corridors of BN HQ almost throughout the Davies era. The national newspapers were every bit as bad but they weren't as close to the action and have short attention spans. Whose really interested in Bolton Wanderers apart from a few thousand Bolton Wanderers supporters?

I suspect that you are right about David Wheater and that the strike in the summer of 2018 was stoked up by pea-brained pillocks without a thought in their heads of the long-term damage it might have on creditors or the more modestly paid and loyal staff of BWFC

But, if we return to the start of this thread, lets just take another short look at what's happening at FGR, one of our probable opponents next season. The t-shirt issuing, ripped jeans-wearing, mutton dressed as lamb millionaire, Dale Vince, is constantly in the media on his self-sacrificing 'mission' but which newspaper has published the fact that over the last nine years Vince's taxpayer-subsidised Ecotricity Group has reported losses of £22m whilst Vince has spent £13.5m on Forest Green Rovers and drawn another £9m in interest-free loans to himself?

Its Friday the thirteenth today, so lets hope us oldies can avoid COVID-19 a bit longer. I've been self-isolating from BSE-15 all season.

I think it is more ignorance from the likes of Iles and Glendening than a conspiracy from the BN in respect of Eddie these days. I'm not saying that there was never an agenda against him but I don't really think it is in play anymore and I'm much more minded that it is more to do with Iles prejudices against him, his complete lack of understanding how businesses work and listening (and siding) with those who have their own agendas, rather than him remaining impartial and unbiased.

Take his following article for example - and reflect on his last sentence knowing now what Davies actually did for the club and all us fans who followed it.

Iles was quite clearly onboard with the ST even at that time and seeking 'community ownership', no wonder he was against Anderson right from the start.

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/14195973.comment-why-eddie-davies-owes-bolton-wanderers-supporters-some-clarity/

Is it any wonder why Eddie had no time for him and also towards the end Gartside gave him the cold shoulder too.

Ken banned him of course and Iles bitches nearly every week now that FV won't give him an interview - although they did throw him a bone last week when Emma and Phoenix told him why they had scrapped the U23's for next year.

You'd think he'd be asking himself why he's been constantly out in the cold from the club for all those years when basically his job is all about getting as much out of it as he can!

Obviously he doesn't think he himself could be the reason!



129When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Fri Mar 13 2020, 11:13

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
I wouldn't say it was a conspiracy, Sluffy. They just didn't get it.

If any of them had ever taken the trouble to read the club's Annual Reports, they might have understood at least some of it. But they didn't and were never of a mindset to do so.

At its roots was, I believe, a  basic fundamental prejudice that anything put in a company's Annual Report by anyone quite wealthy must be inherently self-serving and untrue. Sometimes it is. Ecotricity is an example but it wasn't the case with BWFC.

The sad truth about how much ED had to keep raiding the trust fund to keep the club going was always there for anyone, at all interested in the facts, to see.

130When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Sat Mar 14 2020, 08:57

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly

LETTER OF THE DAY: Dale Vince's attitude is 'tiresome, patronizing and downright insulting.'

  3




13th March
Dale Vince's attitude towards the Eco Park is tiresome, patronizing and downright insulting.

 By Matthew Holmes  

When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 11149069
Dale Vince




3 comments
Sir,
am I alone in becoming increasingly irritated by Dale Vince's attitude towards the citizens of this part of the county? His approach of "I know what you want/need and mine is the only opinion worth consideration" is tiresome, patronizing and downright insulting.
Following the failure of his erstwhile political puppet at the last general election, Vince immediately attacks our democratically elected MP for having the temerity not to endorse his vanity project, the so-called Eco Park.
My justification of using the term vanity project is based upon the fact that Vince owns a consistently poor performing football club, playing in a stadium that is perfectly adequate for the modest following they attract (that is the stadium where he imposed his own preferred eating habits on the team's hapless followers). The past and current performance of his team does not signal promotion from the leagues of mediocrity to the sunlit uplands anytime soon.
I wonder if Vince has met with the residents of the Eastington/ Oldbury/ Westend/ Nupend/ Fromebridge area to canvas their views on the possibility of having this ludicrous development unceremoniously dumped upon them?
Should the worse happen and this vanity project goes ahead, then I assume Vince will follow his strong socialist principles, sell the Forest Green site for development, and pocket a huge amount of money.
In your Eco Park call in axed piece in last week's SN&J, Dale Vince says "I am a little beside myself". Would not the alternative idiom "I am a great deal up myself" be more appropriate perhaps ?
A. Hill
Stroud

COMMENT
Quite right Mr Hill but you might also ask yourself where the money comes from for such vanity projects.



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Sat Mar 14 2020, 14:29; edited 2 times in total

131When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Sat Mar 14 2020, 09:09

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Tricky coves these businessmen. I myself wasn't impressed by Ken's letter to HMRC. 'Mr Smith' indeed.
When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 900e9ba665fe7f118f4437e6946ef1a3

132When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Sun Mar 22 2020, 10:49

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Meanwhile in the Fiefdom of Forest Green, news of the EFL's £50M financial relief package received one comment in the Stroud News and Journal:

''TootingBull 20th March 6:32 am


If grants/subsidies available, no guessing who will be top of the league....''


I gather that Tooting Bull  has been asking questions of FGR's owner but not been getting any answers.



The SNJ, like the BN, is owned by Newsquest but doesn't do a lot of news questing, allegedly, were Egotricity or FGR are concerned.

133When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Thu Mar 26 2020, 07:55

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Well whaddya know?

''Forest Green Rovers will use the government's wage-support scheme to keep paying staff''


https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/forest-green-rovers-use-wage-3979490


Will somebody tell 'em that Dale Vince has been using the government's wind farm support scheme to keep paying FGR staff for the last ten years - not to mention Vince's million quid a year personal expenses from Egotricity's interest-free loan scheme?

134When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Mon Apr 06 2020, 08:20

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
I see Wayne Rooney has also been offering his thoughts on how Premiership footballers should be contributing or not contributing to the coronavirus challenge. Rooney was another one who rushed into tax avoidance opportunities (several of them) when given half a chance.

He must have been so upset when HMRC ruled a lot of them offside.

Btw they weren't all 'at it'. Quite a lot were but quite a lot weren't or, if they were, it wasn't so blatant. I suspect much depended on who they were listening to but, looking through the lists, the words 'birds of a feather' do come to mind.

135When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Mon Apr 06 2020, 11:37

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Everyone should pay their taxes in full, and the government should be prosecuting those who don’t and closing loopholes. We all know this never has (and never will be) a key focus of the Tory party though. 

Having spent 10 years cutting the NHS putting the focus on footballers just doesn’t sit quite right with me. Why footballers?

136When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Mon Apr 06 2020, 12:01

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Everyone should pay their taxes in full, and the government should be prosecuting those who don’t and closing loopholes. We all know this never has (and never will be) a key focus of the Tory party though. 

Having spent 10 years cutting the NHS putting the focus on footballers just doesn’t sit quite right with me. Why footballers?
It wasn't really the focus of the last Labour government either was it, T.R.O.Y?

All these tax-avoiding film schemes were the result of one of Gordon Brown's cunning plans and I think it was Alistair Darling that brought in the Entrepreneurs Relief that enabled Dale Vince to pay hardly any income tax on the money drawn from his taxpayer subsidised activities.

Didn't Rishi Sunak take a cleaver to that one in his first budget very recently?

I'm pretty certain that Matt Hancock was answering a question put to him but the very first thing that entered my head when I first heard about the employment support package was, what are they going to do about Premiership football clubs?

Don't you think that the UK's recently appointed Secretary of State for Health just might have enough on his hands at the mo without expecting him to resolve the intractable problem of worldwide tax avoidance?



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Mon Apr 06 2020, 12:47; edited 1 time in total

137When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Mon Apr 06 2020, 12:35

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
New Labour made massive mistakes, in many areas but they certainly invested properly in the NHS. You just can’t say the same for the Tories over the last ten years. And it does have an impact.

Who do you vote for out if interest?

138When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Mon Apr 06 2020, 12:43

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Everyone should pay their taxes in full, and the government should be prosecuting those who don’t and closing loopholes. We all know this never has (and never will be) a key focus of the Tory party though. 

Having spent 10 years cutting the NHS putting the focus on footballers just doesn’t sit quite right with me. Why footballers?

Football clubs should be thinking very carefully about their next steps

(The Culture Secretary writes that the public will take a 'very dim view' of clubs who are asking taxpayers to pay ground staff)


We’re all missing the drama of sport right now, but this weekend we saw news on the back pages return for all the wrong reasons.

Given how central sport is to British life, it’s perhaps no surprise that its contribution to the coronavirus battle is under the microscope.

But the deadlock between the Professional Footballers Association and Premier League clubs on player wage cuts is deeply concerning, especially at a time when more clubs have announced they are furloughing many of their lowest paid staff.

Football clubs are, of course, businesses and so, like any other business, the extraordinary steps the Government has made to support the economy, through interventions like the Coronavirus Job Retention scheme, are there to support them in exceptional circumstances.

But football is also much more than a business. It is our national game, and individual clubs are rightly proud of the role they play as pillars of their local communities and their local economies.

Players and managers are able to reach people in ways politicians can only dream of. In times such as these, people will look to football for leadership and they have a right to expect it.

So clubs, players and owners should be thinking very carefully about their next steps.

Leaving the public purse to pick up the cost of furloughing low paid workers, whilst players earn millions and billionaire owners go untouched is something I know the public will rightly take a very dim view of.

At a time of national crisis, our national sport must play its part. I expect to see the football authorities judge the mood of the country and come together with an agreement urgently.

More here-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/04/05/football-clubs-should-thinking-carefully-next-steps/

Seems reasonable comments to me AND highlights the 'owners' and not just the players in this.

139When tax is too taxing. - Page 5 Empty Re: When tax is too taxing. on Mon Apr 06 2020, 13:43

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
He doesn’t really answer why footballers does he, just says because it’s central to UK life. Great.

It just seems like there are bigger issue at play here to me - and the media focussing on this isn’t going to help solve this issue.

Back to top  Message [Page 5 of 5]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum