British Broadcorping Castration

Sluffy wrote:Unless I'm doing something wrong £100k for 0.00075% value's the business massively more than £13.4m

Think of it this way if he's spent £100k for 0.00075% then if he had paid double that he would then have  0.00150% of it, double that again (£400k) he's up to 0.00300%, double it yet again, (£800k) 0.00600% and again (£1.6m) for 0.01200% and so on...

So he would have spent a number of millions just to own 1% of the business, valuing the whole business a hundred times more than that!

If the business was valued at £13.4m and say I bought £1m of it, I would have bought 13.4% of it so a tenth of that (£100k) would be 1.34% would it not.

Not that I've got a spare £100k with a daughter who spends money faster than I could earn it.  She is though environmentally aware and business naive like most her generation and I could see how people could well fete Vance for his image of being a 'green' businessman rather than look to understand how doggedly he's built his fortune on the back of it as such.

People tend only to see what is put in front of them and accept it as being so - you only have to look at all the conspiracy theories and how they spread like wildfire on social media and how even many people with professions (and you would have thought had a brain in their head), believe them too!

That's how it is theses days, probably was so in our days too but without the internet being available back then, being not so immediate or widespread.

As they say, 'there's one born every minute' and as WC Fields said 'never give a sucker an even break' and add to it social media, then is it any wonder people tend not to question what goes on for fear of being ridiculed and out of step with everyone else - look at the shit we endured for simply pointing out how Anderson in his actions of running a business that is close to or at insolvency actually wasn't raping and pillaging the club as the vast majority believed (and many still do!).

Sometimes I wonder if it's worth speaking up and doing the right thing, I imagine for someone younger and not financial secure like we are, who do live their lives on social media like their generation seem to do, standing against the crowd knowing you are right and they are under the wrong illusions, must be an incredibly hard thing to do and not a price worth paying for most of them - and I couldn't blame them for keeping their heads down instead.

Guess that's why we live in the world we now do!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sorry I haven't read too closely, but what is it Bellerin's being accused of here by Bob?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Knock the percentage off and calculate it as a decimal and I think you'll get there, Sluffy. Decimals of percentages often cause a bit of confusion. It can be quite difficult to get your head around less than one tenth of one percent.

I do wonder if young Bellerin understood that it wasn't much of an investment but it seems that Vince wasn't for conceding much to his young admirer in return for his £100K. All a bit of a PR exercise in which the Beeb was a willing participant but £100K into the coffers is not to be sniffed at in present circs.

I still think that there are very few that understood what Ken Anderson's role was at BWFC. Maybe one or two from our efforts but not many.

boltonbonce wrote:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sorry I haven't read too closely, but what is it Bellerin's being accused of here by Bob?

Well off people dodging tax. Really? Does the Pope shit in the woods?

Sluffy wrote:

I really don't think he does.

Bears do though, or are you suggesting the catholic church is led by a bear?

You're going to go to Hell for this if you are (and believe in such stuff!)

T.R.O.Y. wrote:As Bonce says rich people will always find ways to minimise the tax they pay - or probably more accurate to say that teams of financial experts and accountants are paid a fortune to do that for the rich, who sit back and watch their money grow.

The only way to deal with it would be to put a government in place who are actually interested in tackling the issue. 

So if you voted Tory at the last election, you'd better put a sock in it Bobbo.

Sluffy wrote:

Thanks.

A very long time ago since I had to do sums like those but surely if £100k = 0.00075% then surely £200k would be 0.00075% + 0.00075% = 0.00150% would it not - and so on accordingly?

Anyway it's not important.

Seems to me that the football club has issued more shares (at £10 per share) - up from 10,275,000 on the 6th June 2016 - to 13,300,000 on the 8th April, 2020 and a further amount to the value of £100,000 yesterday (no doubt this is Bellerin's money I would assume).

All shares seemed to be paid up so I guess Ecotricity Group Ltd (owned by Vince) who has a significant shareholding of over 75% had put (all?) the money in but has since sold/given/transferred? these shares now a new company Green Britain Group Limited which Dale is the sole owner of and which took significant control from Ecotricity Group Ltd on the 21st September - the day before Bellerin put in his money!

As far as I understand from Bob, the revenue to Ecotricity is largely funded (or was?) by the government subsidies - ie mine and your money - but it would now seem on the face of it at least that Mr Vince has put himself in a position to sell FGR if he desired to do so bought by taxpayer money but any sale going directly to him personally now!

Maybe I've got my wires tangled somehow and this isn't actually the case (I don't want to get sued or anything!) but it does seem Mr Vince looks as though he could do personally very well out of all this at the taxpayers expense - and I think that's the root of why Bob's been on his tail so much particularly from when he threatened to put our club in a perilous position in respect of his dealings with Ken over the Doidge deal.

The Bellerin contribution of £100k for shares from a company he owns seemingly to avoid paying tax on his earnings, and 'trumpeted' by a corporation and individuals of that corporation who themselves have worked to manipulate ways of individual tax avoidance seems to be too much for Bob to stomach and hence the birth of this thread.

I think that's the position anyway!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sorry, you've missed my point.

I'm saying there's no point going after the individuals (rich or poor), while what they do is perfectly legal - in this instance Bellerin, or Lineker.

The only way to really clamp down is to close loopholes and change the law - which is what is on the government to do.

The Tories are not interested in doing this though.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Had another look at this, Sluffy. I had thought that the previous shares were one pound shares issued at a premium but they are not. They are all £10 shares.

Bellerin (it must be him) has bought 10,000 shares for £100,000 and now owns 10,000 out of 1,340,704 shares in issue.

More than I first thought but still less than one percent.

The total money paid for the shares is £13,407,040, all but £100K of which has come from Ecotricity Group (EG). 

EG still owns more than 99% of FGR but FGR has actually lost more than that. 

The small surplus on FGR's balance sheet is the result of revaluations as is most of the surplus showing on EG's balance sheet.

EG is funded, not by Vince, but on debt and those debts have been enlarged by the amount spent on FGR.

So when you've stripped away the veneer, the only real equity investment in FGR is Bellerin's £100K.

If the shares in FGR were sold EG would get 99.25% and Bellerin 0.75%.

EG is owned by Green Britain Group which is wholly owned by Dale Vince.

Quite interesting if you like that sort of thing. A number of other interesting questions in there too but lets not get too complex in one posting.

Sluffy wrote:

Ah ok then, I now see what you are saying but apologies you not strictly correct in your assumption that it is the government being tardy/not actioning/putting up barriers to change the law on tax avoidance schemes, it's far more to do with HMRC proving in court they are in fact tax evasion schemes in the first instance.

I'm not aware of any British government of any political party not acting on HMRC recommendations over closing know loopholes or previously schemes claimed to be within the law as tax avoidance schemes, when in fact they were proved to have been set up to 'evade' tax payments.

For instance it was the Tory government of 2015 that closed the 'perfectly legal' loophole that enriched Vince by millions in the first place.

https://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/13345912.strouds-dale-vince-hits-out-at-government-over-decision-to-end-wind-farm-subsidies/

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Ah ok then, I now see what you are saying but apologies you not strictly correct in your assumption that it is the government being tardy/not actioning/putting up barriers to change the law on tax avoidance schemes, it's far more to do with HMRC proving in court they are in fact tax evasion schemes in the first instance.

I'm not aware of any British government of any political party not acting on HMRC recommendations over closing know loopholes or previously schemes claimed to be within the law as tax avoidance schemes, when in fact they were proved to have been set up to 'evade' tax payments.

For instance it was the Tory government of 2015 that closed the 'perfectly legal' loophole that enriched Vince by millions in the first place.

https://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/13345912.strouds-dale-vince-hits-out-at-government-over-decision-to-end-wind-farm-subsidies/

Sorry, now im confused. You said it's not on the government to close tax loopholes. Then send a link showing where the government have closed tax loopholes?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Okay, thanks but I don’t think that clarification negates the point.

I don’t think this government see closing tax loopholes as a priority.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sure, but I’m talking about the ideology of conservatism, and the Tory party’s record since 2010.

If bob’s so concerned about tax loopholes being shut, he’d best not vote Tory.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The story’s about the Tories not wanting to pay subsidies to support wind farming any more. They did that because their priority is to cut government spending over supporting low carbon power.

They did not cut it to close a tax loophole.