Arthur whittle !!

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="lappinitup"]

Getting back to Arthurs letter, he assumes (along with others) that because we bid for Sharp and Marshall before we sold Earnie that £2.5m was already available in the kitty. He may well be correct but on the other hand if the board knew that Earnie was on his way, they may have given the ok to the bids knowing that £3.5m was coming in. We just don''t know !!

Does anyone know if the £3.5m included VAT or was plus VAT ? If it was included then over half a million would have to go to HM customs and excise. Again, we just don''t know !!

If the above are the facts then Arthurs £6m suddenly becomes £3m but I certainly don''t know !!

What I do know is that the board have said that the Turners money mean''t that we didn''t need to sell players and then having sold Earnie they said it would all be available for Peter Grant (£3-3.5m depending on VAT)

I don''t recall them mentioning any other figures so therefore I don''t understand where Arthur is coming from when he accused the board of lies

I''d be grateful if you can enlighten me Arthur.

 

 

[/quote]

Depending on VAT???

oh my lord... I have heard everything now!!!

oh I''m so sorry... I had to pick myself up off the floor laughing....  [:O]

I knew that we were an apologetic bunch... but this is just beyond a joke!!!

[/quote]

Come on then you lordship. Does the fee include VAT or not ?

I said I didn''t know so can you confirm either way.

P.s. can we have an answer without sheep, fools, idiots, brought into the equation

 

 

[/quote]

I know that VAT is payable for transfer fees.  I also know the club can claim it back but I dont know whether figures qouted are net or gross.

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

To be precise Smudger, for a change, he did not.

He said it would all be available to be spent and so far as we know it is.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Saint Canary"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="lappinitup"]

Getting back to Arthurs letter, he assumes (along with others) that because we bid for Sharp and Marshall before we sold Earnie that £2.5m was already available in the kitty. He may well be correct but on the other hand if the board knew that Earnie was on his way, they may have given the ok to the bids knowing that £3.5m was coming in. We just don''t know !!

Does anyone know if the £3.5m included VAT or was plus VAT ? If it was included then over half a million would have to go to HM customs and excise. Again, we just don''t know !!

If the above are the facts then Arthurs £6m suddenly becomes £3m but I certainly don''t know !!

What I do know is that the board have said that the Turners money mean''t that we didn''t need to sell players and then having sold Earnie they said it would all be available for Peter Grant (£3-3.5m depending on VAT)

I don''t recall them mentioning any other figures so therefore I don''t understand where Arthur is coming from when he accused the board of lies

I''d be grateful if you can enlighten me Arthur.

 

 

[/quote]

Depending on VAT???

oh my lord... I have heard everything now!!!

oh I''m so sorry... I had to pick myself up off the floor laughing....  [:O]

I knew that we were an apologetic bunch... but this is just beyond a joke!!!

[/quote]

Come on then you lordship. Does the fee include VAT or not ?

I said I didn''t know so can you confirm either way.

P.s. can we have an answer without sheep, fools, idiots, brought into the equation

 

 

[/quote]

I know that VAT is payable for transfer fees.  I also know the club can claim it back but I dont know whether figures qouted are net or gross.

[/quote]

From the little I know about transfer activity... I can''t for the life of me see that a person can be vatable.

I may be wrong but how can there be a lwa where you pay VAT on a person???

In any case, as Saint Canary points out above... any VAT paid the club would be able to reclaim 3 months down the line (so that in itself kind of defeats the arguement that VAT payments should be taken in to account when we are talking about money spent on transfers).

Nice try at defending the board though LAPPIN...  Maybe a light-saber would be of more use to you than bringing up silly little matters like this however???

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="Billy Bovine"]Will the real Arthur Whittle please stand up? One Arthur joined on 13/5/07 and has posted 190 times, the other Arthur joined today and has posted 3 times. They both reside at The Coachmakers, St Stephens, however (does Roy the landlord know?) and so I assume they are both fond of the occasional wee dram. Arfa Mo! I think there is something fishy going on here! Too many Arfas spoil the broth.[/quote]

Ive had problems with my original account on here so i had to start afresh. oh and by the way im very good friends with Arsenal Roy the landlord.

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

Firstly, have any of the regulars on here actually met Arthur in person?

Secondly Arthur, who is that picture of in your avatar? 

Thirdly, Arthur, the language you use, the words you type are not those of an old man, you try to type and phrase things that way, but sometimes you slip up.

Finally, Arthur if you can prove me wrong on all of the above I apologise profusely.

But I don''t think think you can.  Which is why I tend to avoid your posts and certainly avoid replying to you directly.

[/quote]

The language i use isnt the type an old man would use? what? what is the point of this thread? i take its to qution who i am? Thats what i hate about this site,if you have an issue with the board everyone starts making up ideas about Binners,wind ups ect ect. Grow up mate.

[Unlucky Fried Kitten 0]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

[quote user="Billy Bovine"]Will the real Arthur Whittle please stand up? One Arthur joined on 13/5/07 and has posted 190 times, the other Arthur joined today and has posted 3 times. They both reside at The Coachmakers, St Stephens, however (does Roy the landlord know?) and so I assume they are both fond of the occasional wee dram. Arfa Mo! I think there is something fishy going on here! Too many Arfas spoil the broth.[/quote]

Ive had problems with my original account on here so i had to start afresh. oh and by the way im very good friends with Arsenal Roy the landlord.

[/quote]

Thanks for clearing that up, Arthur. Naively maybe, I assumed you had an imposter. Arsenal Roy is a very nice fellow, it''s just a pity he has to support that dreadful London club though, isn''t it.

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="Billy Bovine"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

[quote user="Billy Bovine"]Will the real Arthur Whittle please stand up? One Arthur joined on 13/5/07 and has posted 190 times, the other Arthur joined today and has posted 3 times. They both reside at The Coachmakers, St Stephens, however (does Roy the landlord know?) and so I assume they are both fond of the occasional wee dram. Arfa Mo! I think there is something fishy going on here! Too many Arfas spoil the broth.[/quote]

Ive had problems with my original account on here so i had to start afresh. oh and by the way im very good friends with Arsenal Roy the landlord.

[/quote]

Thanks for clearing that up, Arthur. Naively maybe, I assumed you had an imposter. Arsenal Roy is a very nice fellow, it''s just a pity he has to support that dreadful London club though, isn''t it.

[/quote]

It is a shame but we make sure he gets it in the lug! Its a nice pub and a friendly bunch who drink in there. Do you frequent it much?

[chicken 0]

Well the only figure we don''t have a good idea of is Marshalls.

When the story first came out on here about Strihavka and when Grant spoke about it the two things that stuck out were 1. A clause like Earnies that allowed us to speak to Strihavka (a buy out clause) 2. A Czech repport suggesting that this amount is around 1.2million Euros wich is something like £800k (or so I am led to believe).

As for Cureton just look for the pinkun story just after he handed in his transfer request and what his manager had to say. There you will find he said that he would not sell Cureton for anything less than £750k. Sure he may have got a bit more which is why in another of my posts I suggested £800k.

The only thing we do know about Marshall is that we had a couple of bids turned down, one being of £500k  - I can not remember the other. But if the word on the vine is to be believed it is a figure of around £1million - thats what all of the press seem to believe.

Now you could argue that these values are inaccurate but at least they are not guesses or fictionalised amounts made up to suit ones argument. 

[Unlucky Fried Kitten 0]

Hello again, Arthur, I must admit I only go in the Coachmakers about once a fortnight as it is a fair distance from where I live. I think Roy originally struck up a conversation with me about footy because I was wearing a City shirt when I first went in his pub a few years ago. Ever since, even though I''m an infrequent customer, he still has a bit of banter about football most times I see him. Mind you, when I last visited the pub a couple of weeks ago he looked a bit down and didn''t speak. I don''t know whether it was the bad news over Thierry Henry''s departure or what.

[yellow hammer 0]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Saint Canary"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="lappinitup"]

Getting back to Arthurs letter, he assumes (along with others) that because we bid for Sharp and Marshall before we sold Earnie that £2.5m was already available in the kitty. He may well be correct but on the other hand if the board knew that Earnie was on his way, they may have given the ok to the bids knowing that £3.5m was coming in. We just don''t know !!

Does anyone know if the £3.5m included VAT or was plus VAT ? If it was included then over half a million would have to go to HM customs and excise. Again, we just don''t know !!

If the above are the facts then Arthurs £6m suddenly becomes £3m but I certainly don''t know !!

What I do know is that the board have said that the Turners money mean''t that we didn''t need to sell players and then having sold Earnie they said it would all be available for Peter Grant (£3-3.5m depending on VAT)

I don''t recall them mentioning any other figures so therefore I don''t understand where Arthur is coming from when he accused the board of lies

I''d be grateful if you can enlighten me Arthur.

 

 

[/quote]

Depending on VAT???

oh my lord... I have heard everything now!!!

oh I''m so sorry... I had to pick myself up off the floor laughing....  [:O]

I knew that we were an apologetic bunch... but this is just beyond a joke!!!

[/quote]

Come on then you lordship. Does the fee include VAT or not ?

I said I didn''t know so can you confirm either way.

P.s. can we have an answer without sheep, fools, idiots, brought into the equation

 

 

[/quote]

I know that VAT is payable for transfer fees.  I also know the club can claim it back but I dont know whether figures qouted are net or gross.

[/quote]

From the little I know about transfer activity... I can''t for the life of me see that a person can be vatable.

I may be wrong but how can there be a lwa where you pay VAT on a person???

In any case, as Saint Canary points out above... any VAT paid the club would be able to reclaim 3 months down the line (so that in itself kind of defeats the arguement that VAT payments should be taken in to account when we are talking about money spent on transfers).

Nice try at defending the board though LAPPIN...  Maybe a light-saber would be of more use to you than bringing up silly little matters like this however???

[/quote]

 

Businesses charge VAT on goods sold and pay VAT on the cost of goods sold. Since the main business of a football club is to play football, they can charge VAT on the the entrance tickect. A football club''s main business is not to trade players and so there is no VAT charged.

Some might consider in the light of current transfer activity that the main business of NCFC is to seel players, and VAt could be due.

Whay am I writing this cr@p?