Shareholders, are you happy with dilution?

[essex canary 492]

1 hour ago, Mengo said:

 

Reminds me I must get a copy of last week's release of 1997 vintage.

'Don't go down that Dirt Road' and 'It's Not Dark Yet but it's getting there' finally tempered by 'My Heart is in the Highlands, gentle and pure.'

[Google Bot 3,259]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

Did you invest in the bond scheme @essex canary?

There's a Pu55y Galore joke to be made here.  But i'll refrain.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Google Bot

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

4 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Sorry to be pedantic but putting your money in an ISA means that you avoid paying tax on the interest. If you avoid paying tax by legitimate means you are involved in avoidance. 

This may come as a shock to you but as @TeemuVanBastenhas pointed out above, HMRC does give approval codes to some avoidance schemes and you can confirm their use on your Tax Return. 

Using a loophole to use legislation not as Government intended may be avoidance or evasion depending on whether you get it right.

For advice on Evasion I'm afraid you'll have to ask a Tory! 

 

This is completely wrong !  If you use one of those HMRC codes about a tax avoidance scheme on your tax return, you have a big problem and chances are you've been a mug who has paid for an avoidance scheme which will fail to save you tax and end up costing you more in penalties and interest. It's basically a list of schemes that HMRC are gunning for, and chances are high they will fail to save any tax.  

 

Here is the HMRC link to their codes for tax avoidance schems, you won't find your Aviva pension on it (because that's not tax avoidance).  If you read down it you will find it says "HMRC does not approve tax avoidance schemes for use."

Current list of named tax avoidance schemes, promoters, enablers and suppliers - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

 

If you have this idea from a promoter of one of these schemes, it shows how dishonest they are.

Edited January 31, 2023 by It's Character Forming
adding link

[nutty nigel 7,509]

59 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

It must breed a huge sense of relief in you Essex that at some point in the next couple of years MA will take your shares off your hands, and all of this stress will finally be over.

But what is Marky Mark going to do with all those seats for life....

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

15 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

This is completely wrong !  If you use one of those HMRC codes about a tax avoidance scheme on your tax return, you have a big problem and chances are you've been a mug who has paid for an avoidance scheme which will fail to save you tax and end up costing you more in penalties and interest. It's basically a list of schemes that HMRC are gunning for, and chances are high they will fail to save any tax.  

Here is the HMRC link to their codes for tax avoidance schems, you won't find your Aviva pension on it (because that's not tax avoidance).  If you read down it you will find it says "HMRC does not approve tax avoidance schemes for use."

Current list of named tax avoidance schemes, promoters, enablers and suppliers - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

If you have this idea from a promoter of one of these schemes, it shows how dishonest they are.

Tax evasion = Illegal.

Tax avoidance = Legal use of the tax regime in a territory to reduce the amount of tax payable. Sometimes loopholes which will later be closed, but legal still the same. 

Something can sell itself as a "tax avoidance scheme" but not actually be legal, but then it becomes tax evasion.

Example of very simple tax avoidance for the layman is directing company profits from your ltd company into a directors pension. Its a deductible expense so no corporation tax paid, and its not PAYE so no NI or income tax or student loan repayments or child maintenance levied (although that way you would get a tax relief on the income tax element). That's completely tax free money for the director. By doing it this way he is avoiding tax for himself and his business, legally, hence the word "avoidance".

Edited January 31, 2023 by TeemuVanBasten

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

4 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Tax evasion = Illegal.

Tax avoidance = Legal use of the tax regime in a territory to reduce the amount of tax payable. Sometimes loopholes which will later be closed, but legal still the same. 

Something can sell itself as a "tax avoidance scheme" but not actually be legal, but then it becomes tax evasion.

Example of very simple tax avoidance for the layman is directing company profits from your ltd company into a directors pension. Its a deductible expense so no corporation tax paid, and its not PAYE so no NI or income tax levied (although that way you would get a tax relief on the income tax element). That's completely tax free money for the director. By doing it this way he is avoiding tax for himself and his business, legally, hence the word "avoidance".

This is not how HMRC view it.

 

Do you have a pension ?  Do you think that's tax avoidance under your definition ?  I certainly don't.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

31 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

Do you have a pension ?  Do you think that's tax avoidance under your definition ?  I certainly don't.

That's probably more "Tax mitigation" for the everyday man on the street sticking a bit of money in their SIPP more than anything.

On a corporate level though then yeah, of course pensions can be considered tax avoidance. If you have a ltd company and register your wife, daughter, son, son-in law as directors, and then pay £30k a year into each of their pensions as well your own, then that's £150k of profit that isn't subjected to 19% corporation tax (£28500 saved), as well as £30k tax free for 5 people. What do you call that? Because its not illegal.

I suspect HMRC is primarily interested in people declaring what "tax avoidance schemes" they have used so they can work out what loopholes the need to close next. Tax avoidance by definition is the use of loopholes in the tax system to avoid paying tax. It is not illegal. If it is illegal then the loophole doesn't actually exist.

When lots of people got paid their salaries into ltd companies as 'freelancers' or 'contractors' instead of PAYE despite only really working for a single business (loads of BBC staff did this), so they could pay tax at much lower 'dividend tax' rates rather than income tax and NI, that was tax avoidance, and was fully legal. That's now more closely regulated and can't get away with this unless genuinely a contractor or freelancer, but until the regulations changed it was fully legal tax avoidance... exploiting the system to pay less tax.

Edited January 31, 2023 by TeemuVanBasten

[vos 155]

4 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Would it help if Wynnie applied for non dom status....

Or joined the Government.

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

23 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Wrong way round. Avoidance legal, evasion illegal.

Edit: Think we are saying the same thing actually!

[essex canary 492]

23 hours ago, ncfcstar said:

It must breed a huge sense of relief in you Essex that at some point in the next couple of years MA will take your shares off your hands, and all of this stress will finally be over.

That may be so.

I note your well placed sympathy on the subject of ticket prices that on average young people deserve better treatment which is why I felt strongly that a supporter half my age with 1,000 shares (also not having been party to the agreement in the same way that I was) should enjoy the same terms and conditions is me.

You either want fairer treatment for young people or you don't?

[essex canary 492]

On 31/01/2023 at 15:22, nutty nigel said:

But what is Marky Mark going to do with all those seats for life....

At that point, unlike his predecessors, he will be meddling with his own concessions which he is quite entitled to do.

One thing Mark will be able to do is knock out all the minority shareholders when he gets over 90%. In terms of the thread title regarding dilution, the single figure shareholders and a good proportion  of the double figure ones may need to hope some of the larger minority shareholders stay in to keep the percentage over 10%.

[Big Vince 318]

On 29/01/2023 at 23:39, littleyellowbirdie said:

We could easily be if we're going to have a go at seriously upgrading the squad in terms of both transfer fees and salaries in a serious bid for Premier League consolidation.

The first thing the Attanasios did at the Brewers was looking at making player salaries more competitive to attract better players.

If this is true then the boy Attanasio could be my type of owner. I have banged on about Norwich's wages not being competitive in the EPL over and over again. But of course talking sense into the Socialists has been a futile exercise spanning nearly 27 years. At last now there is a glimmer of hope with a boy who understands how things work in the real world instead of the dysfunctional socialist one. PLAYERS GO WHERE THE MONEY IS. End of.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Big Vince
Mind your own business.

[essex canary 492]

1 hour ago, Big Vince said:

If this is true then the boy Attanasio could be my type of owner. I have banged on about Norwich's wages not being competitive in the EPL over and over again. But of course talking sense into the Socialists has been a futile exercise spanning nearly 27 years. At last now there is a glimmer of hope with a boy who understands how things work in the real world instead of the dysfunctional socialist one. PLAYERS GO WHERE THE MONEY IS. End of.

How is he going to do it?

At the Brewers he apparently gets around the equivalent of £2,750 per match attendee per annum. Relevant figure at Norwich is currently around max £1,250.  Who is going to cough up the extra money and how? Of course he may have some ingenious ideas but nevertheless a big challenge.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

6 minutes ago, essex canary said:

How is he going to do it?

At the Brewers he apparently gets around the equivalent of £2,750 per match attendee per annum. Relevant figure at Norwich is currently around max £1,250.  Who is going to cough up the extra money and how? Of course he may have some ingenious ideas but nevertheless a big challenge.

Best post ever Essex. Your question deserves an answer.

[Big Vince 318]

21 minutes ago, essex canary said:

How is he going to do it?

At the Brewers he apparently gets around the equivalent of £2,750 per match attendee per annum. Relevant figure at Norwich is currently around max £1,250.  Who is going to cough up the extra money and how? Of course he may have some ingenious ideas but nevertheless a big challenge.

Well, we are all waiting with baited breath for the answers. He has stated that he likes to give the big boys a run for their money and that Norwich City is going to be the vehicle to do so, so there must be a plan that is workable in his opinion, otherwise why would he be looking to get more deeply involved?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

11 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

Well, we are all waiting with bated breath for the answers. He has stated that he likes to give the big boys a run for their money and that Norwich City is going to be the vehicle to do so, so there must be a plan that is workable in his opinion, otherwise why would he be looking to get more deeply involved?

Yes, because everyone who’s ever bought a football club has always had a workable plan…😍

[Big Vince 318]

25 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Yes, because everyone who’s ever bought a football club has always had a workable plan…😍

You will note that I qualified that with "in his opinion". The boy Boehly has lashed out over half a billion in under a year, but we don't yet know if the boys-to-rent will win the league.

[Google Bot 3,259]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

How is he going to do it?

At the Brewers he apparently gets around the equivalent of £2,750 per match attendee per annum. Relevant figure at Norwich is currently around max £1,250.

Prem league money is the cherry, of course.  Seems that you get £85m this season for being there, £2.2m a place. 

By comparison MLB TV Deal is around $80-100 (£70m?) - and they have a 40-man roster.

So using what you've said for match attendees as a guide:

NCFC in prem = £92m TV + £30m Gate = £122m/26 squad = Equiv of  £4.7m/Player

Brewers MLB = £70m TV + £110m Gate = £180m/40 squad = Equiv of £4.5m/player

Finishing 4th from bottom in prem, in simplistic maths, we'd generate more income per playing staff from TV and Attendances than Brewers in the current model.  Dare I say that there's a whole ton more staff to pay at an MLB club too?

So, if we stick to the model of building from within, and back that up with a decent pay and prem survival - it's not all that wild a plan.

A lot "ifs" involving the prem league though, you can see how these investments go sour.  I guess tax is quite different, too.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Google Bot