Where does 30% go?

[pete 318]

Does the club save the money for a rainy day, does it go to PL to offset losses or does it go to pay for good causes as prescribed by PL, NCFC or UK Gov ?  Anyone have any better insight where best used?

[Branston Pickle 3,632]

I confess I did wonder - it’s all well and good moaning that footballers are overpaid and should do more, but ultimately they are paid by their clubs.  Presumably the money will be diverted to a specific account  for “good causes”, otherwise the football clubs just save all the money for themselves (along with the taxpayer losing rather a large wedge of tax).

[Bill 1,788]

More relevant is where is the money supposed to come from to carry on paying the players.

With no games there will be no match day earnings, sponsorship etc - that's without the thought that Sky, BT etc are hardly likely to be wanting to cough up in full for games they are not showing, or getting money for

So where is the money coming from ?

[dylanisabaddog 4,848]

8 hours ago, Bill said:

More relevant is where is the money supposed to come from to carry on paying the players.

With no games there will be no match day earnings, sponsorship etc - that's without the thought that Sky, BT etc are hardly likely to be wanting to cough up in full for games they are not showing, or getting money for

So where is the money coming from ?

Premier League clubs derive nearly all their income from TV. The players are the ones who ultimately bring that money in and are paid accordingly. At the moment the Premier League has stated that its intention is to finish the season. That stance is strongly supported by the Government who would like to see a 'Festival of Football' to keep the people happy. If that happens then the players will earn the money they are getting. At the moment the tv companies have not asked for a refund. 

If the Premier League decides to scrap the season then there would be a revenue loss which should be reflected in a drop in salaries. But until that point comes I don't see any reason why salaries should be reduced, unless it applies to all high earners across all industries 

Edited April 5, 2020 by dylanisabaddog

[duke63 541]

Government are using football and the top players to deflect from the f*ck up they have created.

 

How about we point the finger at tax dodging companies and individuals who are the ones really responsible for the fact the NHS has been starved of cash and equipment and staff for the last ten years.

[Daz Sparks 1,140]

40 minutes ago, duke63 said:

Government are using football and the top players to deflect from the f*ck up they have created.

True story Duke.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Premier League clubs derive nearly all their income from TV. The players are the ones who ultimately bring that money in and are paid accordingly. At the moment the Premier League has stated that its intention is to finish the season. That stance is strongly supported by the Government who would like to see a 'Festival of Football' to keep the people happy. If that happens then the players will earn the money they are getting. At the moment the tv companies have not asked for a refund. 

If the Premier League decides to scrap the season then there would be a revenue loss which should be reflected in a drop in salaries. But until that point comes I don't see any reason why salaries should be reduced, unless it applies to all high earners across all industries 

This is a bit of a fallacy, at least for us. The figures and percentages will be different this time because of the increased TV money but in our last season in the EPL 25 per cent of our income was from ticket sales, catering and commercial, and 72 per cent from TV.

So if, for example, the season eventually gets played to a finish but behind closed doors, so there is a drop in catering and commercial revenue, and with season ticket refunds, I would think Norwich City would suffer a significant loss of income, given how tight our finances are.

[dylanisabaddog 4,848]

1 hour ago, duke63 said:

Government are using football and the top players to deflect from the f*ck up they have created.

 

How about we point the finger at tax dodging companies and individuals who are the ones really responsible for the fact the NHS has been starved of cash and equipment and staff for the last ten years.

Google

Apple

Starbucks

Amazon 

They don't pay tax (and they're American) . If the Government doesn't respond after this the people will have to do it for them. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,848]

2 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

This is a bit of a fallacy, at least for us. The figures and percentages will be different this time because of the increased TV money but in our last season in the EPL 25 per cent of our income was from ticket sales, catering and commercial, and 72 per cent from TV.

So if, for example, the season eventually gets played to a finish but behind closed doors, so there is a drop in catering and commercial revenue, and with season ticket refunds, I would think Norwich City would suffer a significant loss of income, given how tight our finances are.

Since we were last in the Premier League the tv money has significantly increased but gate receipts haven't 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Clubs will eventually come out of this with losses. They need to minimise those losses. And some, including our own which shocked me and others, have decided to use the furlough route to save money. Now why can't the players work out in their tiny greedy minds that their industry is facing a problem. Many other industries have seen the workforce and management, take pay cuts by only receiving 80% income albeit from the Government.

Stop messing about and quoting tax, which is clearly a place where many of them don't want examining. The money doesn't need donating to go good causes or the NHS. We want your club to be in a position where it isn't paying out 49% of its non existent income on players wages. 

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

6 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Since we were last in the Premier League the tv money has significantly increased but gate receipts haven't 

The general estimate is that we will receive £100m  in TV money. Even if inflation hasn't pushed up income from catering and commercial, which it almost certainly has, non-TV income will still be 20 per cent. That is a significant figure and if the season ends behind closed doors will affect our finances.

[dylanisabaddog 4,848]

6 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Stop messing about and quoting tax, which is clearly a place where many of them don't want examining. 

Do you have any evidence for that allegation? The only tax avoidance that I'm aware of still in use is image rights which is not a huge issue outside the players at the very top. That avoidance device was tested in the courts by HMRC who lost. 

[Bill 1,788]

1 hour ago, duke63 said:

How about we point the finger at tax dodging companies and individuals who are the ones really responsible for the fact the NHS has been starved of cash and equipment and staff for the last ten years.

That's not actually correct in that is having a government who don't want to fund the NHS (and many of the other public services) where the pronlem lies.

Having a government who charge non EU nurses £625 to access the health service they work in, while allow ing Eton to dodge tax by claiming to be a charity.

As long as people vote for a government with that mindset then chasing the big boys to pay their tax will count for litt

[Bill 1,788]

an interesting piece

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-8188005/Liverpool-face-55MILLION-losses-TV-revenue-Premier-League-season-voided.html

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

This is a bit of a fallacy, at least for us. The figures and percentages will be different this time because of the increased TV money but in our last season in the EPL 25 per cent of our income was from ticket sales, catering and commercial, and 72 per cent from TV.

So if, for example, the season eventually gets played to a finish but behind closed doors, so there is a drop in catering and commercial revenue, and with season ticket refunds, I would think Norwich City would suffer a significant loss of income, given how tight our finances are.

To add some - very rough - calculations, based on figures the Mail has produced, which estimate voiding the season would reduce our TV income from £94m to £79.5m.

With a touch of rounding up a guesstimate is that the club was banking on income of £118.5m - £95m from TV, £10m from tickets, £4.5m from catering and £9.0m from commercial.

Given that voiding would mean up losing the last five home league games, which I have rounded down to being one-quarter of the season, that would cut TV money to £80m, tickets to £7.5m, catering to £3.4m and commercial to £6.8m, giving a £20.8m drop in income to £97.7m.

I cannot stress enough how rough these calculations are (for starters they assume the club would have to refund all season ticket holders to the full, and I doubt commercial would suffer as much in proportion as the other sectors) but they give a sense of the likely consequences. The overall drop is around 17 per cent, and the non-TV income drop is 24 per cent.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Do you have any evidence for that allegation? The only tax avoidance that I'm aware of still in use is image rights which is not a huge issue outside the players at the very top. That avoidance device was tested in the courts by HMRC who lost. 

Rooney, the chief culprit in the stop picking on us brigade, when playing for ManUre had his wages paid into a company that was named for arguments sake WRooney. That company owned Rooney's rights as such. They had one director, I don't know whether it was him or Coleen. That director borrowed money from WRooney as a loan. Of course you don't pay tax on a loan. And the nof course you don't pay it back.

It was obviously more sophisticated than that but that is the gist. His tax bill on £300K a week was probably no more than yours.

I know these, loopholes as Cameron described them (totally unable its seems to close them), exist. OK you have got away with it. But do not bleat now that you want to do your bit for the NHS rather than take a pay cut of 30%. You couldn't give a flying fox five years ago.

Footballers better watch their step in the future. Many people are taking pay cuts of 20%. Many of them will be struggling losing that 20%. It could tip the balance. They will still have to pay their mortgages even after the holiday. They will still have to pay their maxed out credit cards. And many will have to think twice about buying a season ticket for next seasons football.

Take your cut fellas. Help your club, not the NHS or good causes. Your club has no income. The same as our cafe has shut and has no income. And the staff have had to take cuts.

If one thing good can come out of this virus it could be that we are just people. Most of us cut from the same tree. We need to end self indulgence and greed. We have experienced a great deal of warnings over the last few years. Financial, climate, wars. Ignore the warnings if you want. That, in my opinion, would just be more self indulgence.

We have discovered through this crisis that the people who are looking after us are the minimum wage earners and lowest paid.  Just like cockroaches could survive a nuclear war.

Footballers, bankers, so called celebrities, take heed, we have discovered we can do without you.

[dylanisabaddog 4,848]

3 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Do you have any evidence for that allegation? The only tax avoidance that I'm aware of still in use is image rights which is not a huge issue outside the players at the very top. That avoidance device was tested in the courts by HMRC who lost. 

Rooney, the chief culprit in the stop picking on us brigade, when playing for ManUre had his wages paid into a company that was named for arguments sake WRooney. That company owned Rooney's rights as such. They had one director, I don't know whether it was him or Coleen. That director borrowed money from WRooney as a loan. Of course you don't pay tax on a loan. And the nof course you don't pay it back.

It was obviously more sophisticated than that but that is the gist. His tax bill on £300K a week was probably no more than yours.

 

I should perhaps say that I have recently retired after 30 years as an Inspector of Taxes so I do have considerable knowledge of this subject. I have no knowledge of Rooney's affairs at all but I can be certain that what you refer to is image rights not wages. It was established by the courts a long time ago that sports clubs could pay their playing staff a certain amount for using their name and their picture for merchandising and the like. The courts have said that any such payment falls outside of PAYE because it is not income earned in the performance of duties. The payment for using those rights, should the player allow their image or name to be used, is taxable but because it is not earned in the performance of duties does not attract National Insurance contributions. Many players, possibly including Rooney, set up companies to receive those payments and the club avoids 3% NIC. The money will then be in a company owned by the player but any money withdrawn from that company is taxable in the normal way. That may seem like tax avoidance to you but it is the correct operation of the law. If NCFC used your face on a t shirt you would expect to pay income tax on whatever they paid you but not NIC. 

The only question is what the image rights are worth and HMRC employ experts to tell them. They also have a special unit for football clubs staffed by experts to ensure that they play ball. 

In Spain, Ronaldo, Messi and Mourhino have been given huge fines for abusing the image rights regime but the abuse did not happen when Ronaldo and Jose worked in this country. 

Having said that football is relatively clean, it has to be said that the rest of Britain isn't. Nicholas Shaxson has written 2 books entitled The Men Who Stole The World. Those books reveal that 1 in 3 bank accounts in offshore tax havens are owned by a British person or a British company. It is the one area in which we lead the world. 

As you say, Cameron and Osborne tried to do something about it and the EU set up a working party. The main reason, I think, that certain people like Aaron Banks wanted us to leave the EU was that the anti corruption laws flowing from the EU review came into force on 1 January 2020. Banks funded the Leave campaign with £7m which came from one of his offshore companies. That was illegal and unethical and he was fined for it. 

I'm sure that footballers are no angels once they have received their income after tax but the real culprits are our large corporations. According to figures in the Sunday Times, I personally paid more income tax in one year than Amazon paid in corporation tax. Starbucks have barely paid a penny in 11 years. Information in Private Eye suggests that Barclays Bank has the biggest internal tax avoidance department in the world but still managed to pay £100m in fees to external tax experts. 

In case you think Cameron was the good guy in all this, his family for years operated a Panamanian Trust. And until recently the Conservative Attorney General (legal advisor to the Government) was Geoffrey Cox. Again according to Private Eye he was twice as a Barrister  caught fiddling his tax. Allegedly he designed the scheme that Jimmy Carr was involved in. 

I've obviously been very careful not to use any information in this post that I obtained professionally. It's all information that is in the public domain. When Jimmy Carr got caught he was splashed all over the front pages but Cox never got a mention. I wonder why? 

Sorry to disillusion you but I'm afraid you live in one of the most corrupt countries in the world. About four years ago the head of the Directors Institute proudly claimed that Britain is now a good place to do business. I think I know what he meant. 

There is hope though. We now have a Labour leader with an exceptional brain. 

Edited April 5, 2020 by dylanisabaddog

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Are the tax rules you refer to recent Dylan?

[dylanisabaddog 4,848]

If you're referring to image rights the law goes back to the 1940's. In the 1970's the Inland Revenue challenged a claim by a rugby league player that payments for the use his picture and name were not subject to PAYE and therefore National Insurance should not be charged. His argument was that his name and picture were nothing to do with the duties of his employment which were essentially to just play rugby. His contract specifically stated that the club had to pay him extra for photos etc. The case ended up in the High Court and all 3 judges ruled against the Inland Revenue. That ruling is virtually impossible to challenge and I think it makes sense. It shows my age but I can't remember his name! 

The only real issue is the value of the rights. With our players they are probably not worth a great deal but you mentioned Rooney and his name would have been worth a fortune to United in the terms of shirt sales alone,let alone all the t shirts with his face plastered over the front. 

Ronaldo, Messi and Mourinho took advantage of the same system in Spain but set up companies to own the image rights in a tax haven. That's still OK if you pay tax on what you take out of the company but they apparently didn't. They all paid over very large amounts in tax to avoid a jail sentence. Greedy sods. 

Since the advent of squad numbers players have been signing autographs with their name and shirt number. I don't know but they may be doing that to protect rights in their number. Ronaldo just signs CR7

Edit - as a footnote, Juve had made a profit on the cost of Ronaldo before he kicked a ball for them due to merchandise and increased traffic on social media. We live in a strange world 

Edited April 5, 2020 by dylanisabaddog

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

So is it correct about Philip Green avoiding tax through his wife's domicility?

 

 

[JF 694]

Seen a report that the players are demanding the 30% goes directly to the nhs and not to remain in the clubs. According to the report some clubs are saying they will go bust if this happens 

[ricardo 7,334]

3 minutes ago, JF said:

Seen a report that the players are demanding the 30% goes directly to the nhs and not to remain in the clubs. According to the report some clubs are saying they will go bust if this happens 

So its actually the clubs that are taking the loss. 

[JF 694]

1 minute ago, ricardo said:

So its actually the clubs that are taking the loss. 

If the report is true then yeah 

[ricardo 7,334]

Therefore it is no help to the clubs trying to stay in business.

[Bill 1,788]

I pointed this out somewhile back,

Without the remaining games being completed I would suggest clubs will lose out pro rata. Which would mean that there would not be the necessary income to meet in full players contracts ...... remember the collapse of ITVDigital ?

And with clubs in lower leagues due stage/bonus/sell on/ payments the domino effect could be terminal for some. I'm not sure why some felt the season could simply be waived away as if it were a visit to the zoo that had to be ended early due to rain.

This I am afraid is the same domino effect that will happen elsewhere

 

[Bill 1,788]

8 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Therefore it is no help to the clubs trying to stay in business.

err, no .... it is a help

as it reduces their liabilities ie wage bil

Edited April 5, 2020 by Bill

[ricardo 7,334]

1 minute ago, Bill said:

err, no .... it is a help

as it reduces their liabilities ie wage bil

But if they then pay the third party ie supposed good causes with the 30 percent saved, they are no better off. You end up with the players looking generous and their employers ( the clubs) still going bust.

[dylanisabaddog 4,848]

43 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

So is it correct about Philip Green avoiding tax through his wife's domicility?

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Green#Tax_avoidance

She is a resident of Monaco. As is Lewis Hamilton who also lives there to avoid tax. If you Google tax avoidance and Bono you will probably go off U2 as well. Google are allegedly very naughty too. 

Edited April 5, 2020 by dylanisabaddog

[Bill 1,788]

5 minutes ago, ricardo said:

But if they then pay the third party ie supposed good causes with the 30 percent saved, they are no better off. You end up with the players looking generous and their employers ( the clubs) still going bust.

Which is why I doubt that will happe, as it is not about whether players are worth that amount, it is whether clubs have the money to meet the continued wage bill.

At the moment the idea seems to be like a cricket batsman given the time to 'walk'. Make it look like the cuts are voluntary rather than imposed.

My thought re the PFA is not one of being greedy b'stards but not wanting to set a precedent whereby the player sifns a contract in good faith, owner over spends, club in dire straits as it knows it can always simply cut wages as in April 2020. They  wil want it in stone that this is a 'one off'.

Sadly with the standard and intent of our media that side is never put over.

[ricardo 7,334]

11 minutes ago, Bill said:

Which is why I doubt that will happe, as it is not about whether players are worth that amount, it is whether clubs have the money to meet the continued wage bill.

At the moment the idea seems to be like a cricket batsman given the time to 'walk'. Make it look like the cuts are voluntary rather than imposed.

My thought re the PFA is not one of being greedy b'stards but not wanting to set a precedent whereby the player sifns a contract in good faith, owner over spends, club in dire straits as it knows it can always simply cut wages as in April 2020. They  wil want it in stone that this is a 'one off'.

Sadly with the standard and intent of our media that side is never put over.

Yes indeed, lots of implications there. How it all plays out is still not within our control at the moment so many options remain open.