Juggy

[quote user="Colourful Canary"]A quoted transfer fee would normally be VAT inclusive, which means the 17.5%VAT is part of the £10m not 17.5% on top. [/quote] VAT has been 20% for a few years now! [quote] This all strikes me as very fair, because it should be the clubs making the biggest profits who should pay most VAT. [/quote]But that means the biggest clubs pay the least /none at all, because they spend more than they recoup, while clubs down the pyramid like Peterborough will end up with substantial tax bills, £600k for Ryan Bennett for example, which is a huge amount for a club their size. So strikes me as a little unfair personally. 

I''d be happy enough with £8m plus Lukaku for a year, then spend the money on Fraser Forster. 

Lukaku on loan for a year anybody? Maybe even Van Ginkel?

[quote user="Felixfan"]We do not have to sell.Mcnally has always said we will not sell anyone we did not want to and also said we are not a selling club.[/quote]We would have to sell if Ruddy and his agent negotiated a release clause in his contract, and that isn''t entirely out of the question. 

[quote user="TheNewBoy"]Not sure if it is quite that clear forward.[/quote]straight forward I mean''t.

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="TheNewBoy"][quote user="Yelloow Since 72"]CH again has denied any approach [/quote]He may have denied an approach, but he hasn''t denied that Ruddy or his agent has said that he wants out? I just hope that it isn''t true, because I thought he had more sense than that. We even have the England goalkeeping coach here.[/quote]   I haven''t seen Hughton deny an approach, He has only denied that Chelsea have made a formal offer or bid.Norwich City manager Chris Hughton insisted he has not received any bids for his star players, including reported Chelsea target John Ruddy. Hughton has dismissed claims of a bid, but suggested that any negotiations the club are involved in would not be made public in any case. "No [there have not been any bids], and probably if there were I wouldn''t say it," he told reporters. "The best way is to conduct business behind closed doors. "If there has been interest in our players then that is a plus as far as I am concerned because we must be doing something right."And you can read that between the lines as an acknowledgement that Chelsea have made an approach. [/quote]Not sure if it is quite that clear forward, but that certainly can''t be taken any more as a denial than it can as an acknowledgement, for me that says nothing at all. What does speak louder than words though is the complete silence from John Ruddy and David McNally on twitter. I know that McNally wouldn''t want to respond to every rumour but the flames are getting very big and I''d have expected an attempt to extinguish a few of them by now if there was nothing in it at all.One thing that I have noticed is that the club hasn''t released any ''pre-season'' photos, many other clubs have shown their players back at training. Could it be that if they did release photos from this week there may have been a player, or two, noticeable in their absence? 

Obviously a club will pay corporation tax on any ''profit'', if they make one, but very few manage to make one of those. If there is no tax whatsoever to be paid on transfer fees them perhaps a transaction tax should be introduced, because the country is broke and football is full of money. 

[quote user="Javiers Deaf Translator"]you''re not paying VAT on the contract, you pay it on the service and whatever money was due at signing on the phone. if you cancel a contract with a phone carrier, you DO NOT pay VAT. you end up paying a S**T ton depending how long is left on the contract, but not VAT.[/quote]I''m trying to get my head around how this would mean that we wouldn''t have to pay VAT when selling the player registration rights of John Ruddy though. I guess we are actually selling ''property'', but even if you sold a house you are subject to stamp duty and capital gains tax if you owe more than one. Capital gains tax on John Ruddy would work out almost as much as VAT would.The closest thing that I can relate a player transfer to is the sale of a lease or a freehold, because you are effectively selling the legal right of ownership. Makes me wonder whether we are actually liable to capital gains tax on the profit rather than VAT, but really can''t imagine there being no tax liability at all. If there isn''t then there really should be one in place. 

He''d be very lucky to play 10 games next season unless Cech gets injured. 

[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"][quote user="clarkey1972"...but we will have done it to other clubs when signing their players too. [/quote]Yep, we have done it to Leeds several times. Snodgrass probably the best example. 

If only Bunn was half a foot taller... 

[quote user="Mervmeister"]Chelsea will prob win title next year and of he gets to make a few appearances he may well get his hands on A prem winners medal. [/quote]Will he feel like a winner though? 

[quote user="Sir Humphrey Appleby"]A legal contract is not a VAT''able item so no, we may realise a profit on an intangible asset or at the very least a trading profit subject to CT but not VAT.[/quote]But every sale is just a contract between two parties? When you go into Phones4U and buy an iPhone, that''s just a contract, but you still pay VAT on it. May be that legal services are exempt from VAT (so use of legal representation), but every sale is a contract in some form? 

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]Would the £10m be VAT inclusive or plus VAT? If these transfers do include VAT (interesting point) then as a net buying club, by some distance, over the past few seasons we would have had a lot of VAT to claim back. By the way, what is the VAT rate in Portugal?  [/quote]That''s a good point also, we get the liability reduced due to money spent. Wouldn''t this be a good reason to buy a UK replacement though? E.g. Fraser Forster for £5m, would leave us owing £1m instead of £2m. 

[quote user="Lets be aving you"]Good question.   Found the following answer from 2008 on a tax forum, but cannot vouch for its accuracy (I guess the 17.5% rate mentioned is now 20%).   "The transfer of footballers is subject to VAT in the same way as any other goods or services. Domestic transfers in the UK are taxable at the 17.5% standard rate. However, transfers between football clubs in the EU are relieved of VAT. Sales from a UK club to a buyer outside the EU are also free of VAT, although if a UK club buys a player from outside the EU it must account for VAT on the purchase.The transfer window has no real effect on the VAT position. If a club has a December VAT period, but wants to buy a player in the first week of January it could bring the tax point forward by requesting a VAT invoice from the selling club on 31 December. Of course, this might meant that the selling club has to pay its VAT three months earlier.Read more at http://www.taxationweb.co.uk/forum/football-transfers-t22078.html#2cTOhj8Ryu5jws4r.99" [/quote]Wow! No wonder so many clubs go under with HMRC debts then, puts a new perspective on the huge tax bills that clubs owe when they go into administration. 

[quote user="Houston Canary"]We wouldn''t be the ones buying and certainly not getting any value added by selling him so I''d say a resounding No to your query.[/quote]That''s not the way sales tax works in the UK, the seller is responsible for paying it. 

Has anybody ever asked this question before? It is a sale from one business to another, so if we sold Ruddy for £10m would we have a VAT liability of £2m? 

Much rather Schmeichel than Bunn though. Did you know he was recently capped by Denmark and got in the Champs team of the year last season? Can''t really see how Schmeichel is a bad shout as such, just think he is more of a Norwich circa-2011 signing rather than a Norwich circa-2013 signing, we should really be looking to spend up to £5m on a Ruddy replacement. 

[quote user="Morisons Prozac"][quote user="can u sit down please"]Friedel Brad jones Kasparov schmeichel Alex McCarthy Kieron weatwood[/quote]Not being funny but they are all terrible shouts.Friedel probably doesn''t even have anotherseason left in him, Jones has been awful for Liverpool every time he played and will never be a no. 1, Schmeichel is a TV keeper in where he exaggerates simpler saves to make him seem that he is a great keeper whereas in reality he is very average. Westwood will never be a Prem keeper either.[/quote]Agree with all that with the exception of Schmeichel who is developing all the time and actually looks like he has become a very competent keeper, definitely a step up on Mark Bunn, but I would like to see us aim a bit higher. Forster has more potential than Schmeichel imho. 

When Grant Holt handed in a transfer request David McNally said "he is not for sale at any price". He hasn''t offered a rebuttal on twitter, hasn''t said "Ruddy isn''t for sale". Ruddy in the meantime hasn''t said anything at all on twitter. Would be easy for either of them to have put out the flames, but they haven''t, so I will consider him gone. I can only guess that Ruddy insisted on a minimum fee release clause in his contract, because surely an ambitious debt free club wouldn''t accept £10m for their best player (yes, our best player) unless there was good reason. Anybody else feeling the clause theory? 

[quote user="The Pinkun Role Model"][quote user="Yellowbeagle"][quote user="IndyBones"][quote user="Yellowbeagle"] If they are going to play him then fair enough for the lad, otherwise I think he''ll in all likelihood be kissing his career goodbye.[/quote]You know what, I''d kiss ANY career goodbye if someone offered me 10 mil or more to do so...[/quote] Me too, but then I don''t earn the sort of money John Ruddy does. If I was earning over 500K a year in wages, actually playing, doing the job I love, chance of going to the world cup aswell as a huge likelihood of a big transfer in the future. I''d stay put. [/quote]It''d be different if you''re in that position and money is involved.Put it this way, you''re in a job you love getting paid £10 per hour.  Somebody offered you a job cleaning bogs for £50 per hour, would you take it?[/quote]Not really the same though is it, more suitable question would be: You are in a job that you love getting paid as much as you could possibly need, somebody offered you a job that will probably frustrate you and make you feel unappreciated but will be paying you lots of extra money that you don''t need, would you take it? 

Julio Cesar anybody? How about Robert Green?I''d probably choose Fraser Forster personally, think he could become as good as Ruddy with time. 

[quote user="Fozzie"]Found that picture Ruddy posted of his family back in Feburary.  Could show another reason for wanting to switch to Chelsea: https://twitter.com/Johnruddy86/status/305230595905179648/photo/1[/quote]John Terry will soon be tapping that. 

[quote user="Yelloow Since 72"]CH again has denied any approach [/quote]He may have denied an approach, but he hasn''t denied that Ruddy or his agent has said that he wants out? I just hope that it isn''t true, because I thought he had more sense than that. We even have the England goalkeeping coach here.

For example, Barcelona want Pepe Reina because Victor Valdes is leaving on a free transfer in one years time. That would be the time to go and join a big club who are slowly on the up, and would make him a serious contender to Joe Hart for the England jersey. If he goes to Chelsea then he may be well paid but he will end up sabotaging his England career and won''t be remembered for much other than being an occasional Chelsea keeper who fills in for League Cup games and European qualifiers against Skonto Riga. If he is lucky he might get a cup winners medal for playing the first few rounds of a cup competition. If this is true and he wants out to Chelsea, then just let him go and bring in Fraser Forster - would probably see Forster getting the England caps.