Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Alex Moss

Next weeks restructuring announcements...

Recommended Posts

@LDC

Slightly off topic, but re. Grant Holt...

Throughout his time here, wasn''t his family up in the Carlisle area as he didn''t want to move them down?

So now he''s playing for Hibs, his family has moved down to Norwich?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bassong and Lafferty as DoFs? both former players, both sitting around doing f### all on a Saturday afternoon. Perfect!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the tax/IHT point, can I just clear this up. 

Shares in an unlisted trading company benefit from 100% business property relief from IHT - meaning they pass tax-free on death.  See this link on the HMRC website. https://www.gov.uk/business-relief-inheritance-tax/what-qualifies-for-business-relief

 

So there would be no tax benefit on giving  the shares now, except that it avoids the risk of BPR being removed by the government before the death of the donor - which seems pretty unlikely as it''s a relief that has been around a long time.  And there is a CGT advantage to passing the shares on death rather than giving them when the donor is alive - happy to go into the details on that if anyone is interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

On the tax/IHT point, can I just clear this up. 

Shares in an unlisted trading company benefit from 100% business property relief from IHT - meaning they pass tax-free on death.  See this link on the HMRC website. https://www.gov.uk/business-relief-inheritance-tax/what-qualifies-for-business-relief

So there would be no tax benefit on giving  the shares now, except that it avoids the risk of BPR being removed by the government before the death of the donor - which seems pretty unlikely as it''s a relief that has been around a long time.  And there is a CGT advantage to passing the shares on death rather than giving them when the donor is alive - happy to go into the details on that if anyone is interested.

[/quote]

I should''ve known that would trigger an avalanche of interest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you go into the details ICF?
I''m not going to read it but it may keep you occupied for a bit [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="hogesar"]Can you go into the details ICF?


I''m not going to read it but it may keep you occupied for a bit [:D]

[/quote]

 

Well it''s a really fascinating but little known area Hog...

 

Can I just say how much it irritates me when people use the verb "gifted".  What''s wrong with saying "gave...". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LDC, Grant Holt is NOT a qualified coach at all, he has just started doing his badges though which takes about a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which is akin to doing your qualifications in school or college, they mean very little until you actually gain experience to go alongside them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appointing Grant Holt in some role/capacity at the club - would pacify a percentage of the support.....and give the board some breathing space......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="djc"]Bassong and Lafferty as DoFs? both former players, both sitting around doing f### all on a Saturday afternoon. Perfect![/quote]You would prefer they were on the pitch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s Character Forming wrote the following post at 13/03/2017 9:56 AM:

On the tax/IHT point, can I just clear this up.

Shares in an unlisted trading company benefit from 100% business property relief from IHT - meaning they pass tax-free on death. See this link on the HMRC website. https://www.gov.uk/business-relief-inheritance-tax/what-qualifies-for-business-relief

So there would be no tax benefit on giving the shares now, except that it avoids the risk of BPR being removed by the government before the death of the donor - which seems pretty unlikely as it''s a relief that has been around a long time. And there is a CGT advantage to passing the shares on death rather than giving them when the donor is alive - happy to go into the details on that if anyone is interested.

Actually that is interesting ICF, it was me that posed the question so you have cleared it up.

As a matter of interest, CGT is an interesting one. What sort of "gain" have the shareholders made since purchase?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"It''s Character Forming"Can I just say how much it irritates me when people use the verb "gifted".  What''s wrong with saying "gave...". 

Bcz it sounds a bit daft to say something like ''He''s a gave violin player''

on no!... I see you''ve covered yourself with the use of ''verb''. Well that''s me on the grammar naughty step

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.  I mean, I can understand at the Olympics they now talk about an athlete "medalling" because that''s a useful shorthand for "finished in a medal place" but go back 20 years or so and if you''d talked about an athlete medalling, people would have assumed you meant meddling which would have given quite the wrong impression.

 

But if you want to give something, it''s a present or a gift, and to say you are gifting it just rankles with me, because we have a perfectly good word for that already, which is to say that you are giving it.  But I guess I''m a bit of a dinosaur.

 

I am just about getting to grips with the idea that you can say "they" when you mean "he or she", i.e. one person of either sex.  I do like the fact that the word "guys" refers to people of both sexes whereas the singular "guy" only refers to men.

 

I''ll come back on the exciting topic of CGT when I next take a break from work...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Oxford dictionary describes it thus:

Gift (verb): Give (something) as a gift, especially formally or as a donation or bequest. E.g. ‘the company gifted 2,999 shares to a charity’.

Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Purple

"As to restructuring the bureaucracy, what seems to be being imagined by some is splitting the chief executive''s role into two, with a director of football taking on that side of the job and the finance chief doing the rest.

But that underestimates what a director of football, certainly as used on the continent, does. They do not just deal with the footballing bits that a British chief executive has on their plate, such as transfer fees, contract negotiations, wages etc - fitting all that into the budget.

A continental DoF, who would sit on the board, is essentially the manager, deciding on transfers in and out and on the footballing ethos, while delegating the day-to day stuff to a head coach, who works within the guidelines set by the DoF.

If that is what is planned then it is not splitting the CEO''s job in two, but in effect splitting the manager''s job in two. And this is not popular with English managers, because it sharply reduces their control. It would be a surprise if we were going completely down that route, not least because it does potentially limit those who would be willing to become that head coach.

A compromise would be to keep the manager as manager and have a less hands-on DoF, sitting on the board, dealing only with those footballing bits the old chief executive did, but also using his professional knowledge of the game as a wise counsel to the other directors. Or we could just be keeping the manager as manager and having two people doing what was one job, but with sharply divided responsibilities."

Perhaps we will go for the he sort of structure Wolves adopted after Moxey left them.

Their CEO job was split in two, a sporting director and a managing director. The MD deals with the off pitch stuff, commercial etc and the sporting director responsible for amongst other things recruitment.

They also have a team general manager to coordinate activities for the first team and technical staff, akin to the kind of job that Ricky had I imagine. Also in this structure they had no official chairman, so not sure how board meetings are conducted.

In addition to all of that of course they have Lambert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My understanding has always been to give something, is exactly that, you give it to someone else, like a TV, an old football shirts you no longer want etc.

Gifted has a more legal meaning, and perhaps a limit to what you are able to change owner of, via this method, with incuring charges/fees/tax etc.

Just my personal view, interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Woodman"]The Oxford dictionary describes it thus: Gift (verb): Give (something) as a gift, especially formally or as a donation or bequest. E.g. ‘the company gifted 2,999 shares to a charity’. Interesting.[/quote]

 

Yes, I said I''m a bit of a dinosaur... Language changes and I accept that.  But this particular change irritates me because the verb "give" was perfectly good to cover the same territory all by itself.  It''s not promising when the dictionary definition you quote is so awkward as to say "Give (something) as a gift" which makes it clear how redundant the term is, because you could simply say "Give".    Unless they were thinking of those times when you give something, and it''s not actually a gift...

 

I remember one time last year when I said "if X gives that to Y" and someone asked me "do you mean "if X gifts that to Y"?" and I tried not to sound too sarcastic when I said, yes, if he gives it, then it''s a gift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Greavsy"]My understanding has always been to give something, is exactly that, you give it to someone else, like a TV, an old football shirts you no longer want etc. Gifted has a more legal meaning, and perhaps a limit to what you are able to change owner of, via this method, with incuring charges/fees/tax etc. Just my personal view, interpretation.[/quote]

 

My recollection is that it used to be "give" was the verb and a "gift" or "present" was what you gave.  In the past 10-15 years people have started to use "gifted" as a verb and I agree, it''s in a more legal context you tend to hear it, hence you could say "They thought about gifting the shares to nephew Tom to pass on control of the club."  But the meaning is exactly the same and you could use the word "giving" in every sentence instead of "gifting" without changing the meaning, and to me, "gifting" sounds a lot more awkward.

 

Anyway, I''ll get back to reading my copy of "Eats, shoots and leaves"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree with a few on here that have said they''d like to see Grant Holt come back here in some capacity as part of the restructuring, I''m thinking coach or something similar would be a good fit (not manager - yet), not to mention what a great bloke to have around the place, he just lifts everyone - infact I have no doubt had he have been working with the players this season then Alex Neil would have benefited hugely from Grant''s support and influence around the place. Not sure what the score is with coaching badges but if he could work as part of the team whilst still studying, then I''d be absolutely delighted and welcome it with open arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whilst agree with the sentiment for Grant Holt, surely he would be behind Hucks in the pecking order, he has already put in the long hours with the kids at the academy and progressing through the age groups?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Lessingham Canary"]Whilst agree with the sentiment for Grant Holt, surely he would be behind Hucks in the pecking order, he has already put in the long hours with the kids at the academy and progressing through the age groups?.[/quote]

Very true mate, not saying he should jump ahead of Hucks in that respect, but as he''s already on the payroll then I''d like to see him joined by Holty amongst the staff in some capacity, his middle name should be ''110%'' - and that''s what we''re going to need next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="VW"]

Perhaps we will go for the he sort of structure Wolves adopted after Moxey left them.

Their CEO job was split in two, a sporting director and a managing director. The MD deals with the off pitch stuff, commercial etc and the sporting director responsible for amongst other things recruitment.

They also have a team general manager to coordinate activities for the first team and technical staff, akin to the kind of job that Ricky had I imagine. Also in this structure they had no official chairman, so not sure how board meetings are conducted.

In addition to all of that of course they have Lambert.[/quote]Maybe, but it doesn''t seem to be working terribly well for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
suspect it will be a split of the old CEO role to enable Stone an more prominent role in behind the scenes financial and organisation with a further review of the footballing strategy side down to recruitment, academy and first team coaching.

Just needs to be shared now, as its clear at least some of the players are aware and its only time before its shared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...