Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Glutton for Punishment

Football League to ban transfers for clubs in tax arrears

Recommended Posts

For too long unethical wide-boy owners of clubs have invested in their teams at the expense of the taxpayer. This is great news for us as it will hinder many other clubs who were no doubt banking on non-payment of tax as a cheap overdraft facility. We could have done with this earlier but better late than never. Paying our dues is about the only thing the board have done right!

From BBC Sport http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8060498.stm.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Glutton for Punishment"]

For too long unethical wide-boy owners of clubs have invested in their teams at the expense of the taxpayer. This is great news for us as it will hinder many other clubs who were no doubt banking on non-payment of tax as a cheap overdraft facility. We could have done with this earlier but better late than never. Paying our dues is about the only thing the board have done right!

From BBC Sport http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8060498.stm.

[/quote]

You state that this is great news for us, but can you be certain that we dont owe the tax man money? I wouldnt bet your house on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="CaptnCanary"]I remember something being written a while back about us being fully up to date on all our taxes[/quote]suppose you could question why we don''t play dirty, maybe we''d have had the extra clout to remain in the championship, that could have been the money we needed for Tiny. Nice guys finish last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="CaptnCanary"]I remember something being written a while back about us being fully up to date on all our taxes[/quote]

Was that called the annual company accounts? Because arent we due some of those soon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Glutton for Punishment"]

For too long unethical wide-boy owners of clubs have invested in their teams at the expense of the taxpayer. This is great news for us as it will hinder many other clubs who were no doubt banking on non-payment of tax as a cheap overdraft facility. We could have done with this earlier but better late than never. Paying our dues is about the only thing the board have done right!

From BBC Sport http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8060498.stm.

[/quote]

You state that this is great news for us, but can you be certain that we dont owe the tax man money? I wouldnt bet your house on it.

[/quote]

We rang the late Mr Doomcaster not that very many weeks ago and asked if Norwich were up to date with their tax and VAT payments and the aforementioned Mr Doomcaster said that you were up to date with your returns.  It was on the back of the BBC £50m owing to the taxman story..

Whether or not the late Mr Doomcaster was telling the truth that FL ruling will **** a great number of teams throughout all divisions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Glutton for Punishment"]

For too long unethical wide-boy owners of clubs have invested in their teams at the expense of the taxpayer. This is great news for us as it will hinder many other clubs who were no doubt banking on non-payment of tax as a cheap overdraft facility. We could have done with this earlier but better late than never. Paying our dues is about the only thing the board have done right!

From BBC Sport http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8060498.stm.

[/quote]

You state that this is great news for us, but can you be certain that we dont owe the tax man money? I wouldnt bet your house on it.

[/quote]

It''s not straightforward.  There is such a thing as "deferred tax liability" which seems to be perfectly legitimate, since it appears in the club''s accounts.  Our was just over £700,000 in 2007 and just under £600,000 in 2008.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do recall something recently about tax in football - probably the thing that Cam was talking about, and at the time there didn''t seem to be any question that we were up to date with tax payments.  There''s a massive difference between deferred taxation and actually being in arrears; presumably the transfer ban would hit those who have broken the rules - and quite rightly so.

Has to be said that there is almost a ''guilty by association'' idea coming into Ryan85k''s posts - it is almost as if anyone mentions anything ''bad'' in the game, our board must be guilty of it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Glutton for Punishment"]

For too long unethical wide-boy owners of clubs have invested in their teams at the expense of the taxpayer. This is great news for us as it will hinder many other clubs who were no doubt banking on non-payment of tax as a cheap overdraft facility. We could have done with this earlier but better late than never. Paying our dues is about the only thing the board have done right!

From BBC Sport http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8060498.stm.

[/quote]

You state that this is great news for us, but can you be certain that we dont owe the tax man money? I wouldnt bet your house on it.

[/quote]

It''s not straightforward.  There is such a thing as "deferred tax liability" which seems to be perfectly legitimate, since it appears in the club''s accounts.  Our was just over £700,000 in 2007 and just under £600,000 in 2008.

 

[/quote]

We have deferred tax liability.  It is split into two - you can either pay it all at once or in two six month chunks, one of which will almost certainly fall outside an annual account for that year.  It does not mean you are not up to date so far as Mr Taxman is concerned.

 

Share this post


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

Has to be said that there is almost a ''guilty by association'' idea coming into Ryan85k''s posts - it is almost as if anyone mentions anything ''bad'' in the game, our board must be guilty of it. 

[/quote]

Or maybe I was just acknowledging that we havent yet seen the accounts for 2008/2009?  Which suggests that we dont have a clue whether or not we have met tax liabilities for that financial year? Have you considered that angle? and would you be willing to speculate? Deferred tax payments of £600k in the last accounts, can you be entirely confident that those have been met? they probably have but would you bet your house against it? Because that is all I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Branston Pickle"]

Has to be said that there is almost a ''guilty by association'' idea coming into Ryan85k''s posts - it is almost as if anyone mentions anything ''bad'' in the game, our board must be guilty of it. 

[/quote]

Or maybe I was just acknowledging that we havent yet seen the accounts for 2008/2009?  Which suggests that we dont have a clue whether or not we have met tax liabilities for that financial year? Have you considered that angle? and would you be willing to speculate? Deferred tax payments of £600k in the last accounts, can you be entirely confident that those have been met? they probably have but would you bet your house against it? Because that is all I said.

[/quote]

I have no idea.  I only point that PLC tax or partnership tax (this end) are vastly different from either the PAYE employee situation or even self employed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Branston Pickle"]

Has to be said that there is almost a ''guilty by association'' idea coming into Ryan85k''s posts - it is almost as if anyone mentions anything ''bad'' in the game, our board must be guilty of it. 

[/quote]

Or maybe I was just acknowledging that we havent yet seen the accounts for 2008/2009?  Which suggests that we dont have a clue whether or not we have met tax liabilities for that financial year? Have you considered that angle? and would you be willing to speculate? Deferred tax payments of £600k in the last accounts, can you be entirely confident that those have been met? they probably have but would you bet your house against it? Because that is all I said.

[/quote]

Oh well, I guess we''ll have to agree to disagree - but to me (as an accountant) it does seem that it isn''t wholly necessary to call anything into question based on the fact that we''ve not yet seen the accounts: there''s an implication there that you may have missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[:D][quote user="Branston Pickle"][quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Branston Pickle"]

Has to be said that there is almost a ''guilty by association'' idea coming into Ryan85k''s posts - it is almost as if anyone mentions anything ''bad'' in the game, our board must be guilty of it. 

[/quote]

Or maybe I was just acknowledging that we havent yet seen the accounts for 2008/2009?  Which suggests that we dont have a clue whether or not we have met tax liabilities for that financial year? Have you considered that angle? and would you be willing to speculate? Deferred tax payments of £600k in the last accounts, can you be entirely confident that those have been met? they probably have but would you bet your house against it? Because that is all I said.

[/quote]

Oh well, I guess we''ll have to agree to disagree - but to me (as an accountant) it does seem that it isn''t wholly necessary to call anything into question based on the fact that we''ve not yet seen the accounts: there''s an implication there that you may have missed.

[/quote]

[:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Branston Pickle"][quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Branston Pickle"]

Has to be said that there is almost a ''guilty by association'' idea coming into Ryan85k''s posts - it is almost as if anyone mentions anything ''bad'' in the game, our board must be guilty of it. 

[/quote]

Or maybe I was just acknowledging that we havent yet seen the accounts for 2008/2009?  Which suggests that we dont have a clue whether or not we have met tax liabilities for that financial year? Have you considered that angle? and would you be willing to speculate? Deferred tax payments of £600k in the last accounts, can you be entirely confident that those have been met? they probably have but would you bet your house against it? Because that is all I said.

[/quote]

Oh well, I guess we''ll have to agree to disagree - but to me (as an accountant) it does seem that it isn''t wholly necessary to call anything into question based on the fact that we''ve not yet seen the accounts: there''s an implication there that you may have missed.

[/quote]

Well, if your suggesting that you have seen the accounts then fair play, Im not going to be anything but happy that my football club are able to sign players next season obviously. 

On the otherhand, if you havent seen or worked on the accounts then I cant see what ''implication'' you refer to, and I stand by my original suggestion that nobody here knows whether or not we have met tax requirements.

So go on then, are you telling me that we have paid our dues, or are you merely suggesting that as an accountant you have a crystal ball that nobody else on here does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Branston Pickle"][quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Branston Pickle"]

Has to be said that there is almost a ''guilty by association'' idea coming into Ryan85k''s posts - it is almost as if anyone mentions anything ''bad'' in the game, our board must be guilty of it. 

[/quote]

Or maybe I was just acknowledging that we havent yet seen the accounts for 2008/2009?  Which suggests that we dont have a clue whether or not we have met tax liabilities for that financial year? Have you considered that angle? and would you be willing to speculate? Deferred tax payments of £600k in the last accounts, can you be entirely confident that those have been met? they probably have but would you bet your house against it? Because that is all I said.

[/quote]

Oh well, I guess we''ll have to agree to disagree - but to me (as an accountant) it does seem that it isn''t wholly necessary to call anything into question based on the fact that we''ve not yet seen the accounts: there''s an implication there that you may have missed.

[/quote]

Well, if your suggesting that you have seen the accounts then fair play, Im not going to be anything but happy that my football club are able to sign players next season obviously. 

On the otherhand, if you havent seen or worked on the accounts then I cant see what ''implication'' you refer to, and I stand by my original suggestion that nobody here knows whether or not we have met tax requirements.

So go on then, are you telling me that we have paid our dues, or are you merely suggesting that as an accountant you have a crystal ball that nobody else on here does?

[/quote]

Your original suggestion ended with "I wouldnt bet your house on it." Which implies a degree of doubt on your part. As has been stated, if there is any sniff of trouble in the world of professional football it seems that our "fans" are only too happy to drag our Club into the mix, whether there''s a shred of evidence or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh dear! A deferred tax liability is not an actual real tax liability!!!!! It is a financial accounting adjustment. This is quite a tricky one to understand as it is rather esoteric to say the least to be fair but I sometimes do not know whether to laugh or cry when I see certain posters trying to comment on financial matters such as the long running off-field activities and fixed assets debates. Certain posters ability to display their ignore on here is amazing but given the lack of financial understanding a lot of people are willing to lap up the ridiculous garbage written on here it as fits in with their emotional believes rather than having anything to do with financial reality as further alluded to by the chairman of the football league, the government, Deloittes and Peter Cullum!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]oh dear! A deferred tax liability is not an actual real tax liability!!!!! It is a financial accounting adjustment. This is quite a tricky one to understand as it is rather esoteric to say the least to be fair but I sometimes do not know whether to laugh or cry when I see certain posters trying to comment on financial matters such as the long running off-field activities and fixed assets debates. Certain posters ability to display their ignore on here is amazing but given the lack of financial understanding a lot of people are willing to lap up the ridiculous garbage written on here it as fits in with their emotional believes rather than having anything to do with financial reality as further alluded to by the chairman of the football league, the government, Deloittes and Peter Cullum![/quote]

All I can say on this complex subject is that Doncaster claimed you were up to date with tax liabilities and VAT - the point being that when the original story broke it was suggested that clubs in the Championship between them owed £30m to the taxman.  Doncaster said at the time that Norwich City were not among them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My reading of the Mawhinney statement is that it is an attempt to stop what has been happening - that clubs have been getting behind with paying their current tax liabilities to the taxman and instead spending the money on buying players to the unfair disadvantage of those clubs who do make tax payments correctly and therefore do not have enough money to compete in the transfer market.  It has been going on for years and is grossly unfair on those clubs abiding by the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Badger"]
Does anyone know how amny clubs are in tax arrears?
[/quote]

I have no idea how many clubs are involved and I have never seen a figure mentioned but it was recently estimated that Football League clubs, outside the Premier, currently owe the taxman £50m or more and of that figure about £25-30m was owed by clubs in the Championship League. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it’s a case of the Inland Revenue telling the Football League to sort itself out, otherwise, the Revenue will step in and do it for them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryan- I remember you starting a thread not long ago about how admin would be a good thing, I raised the issue of tax and you were insistent it would not be a problem for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Badger"]Does anyone know how amny clubs are in tax arrears? [/quote]

The Donald Mackintyre show covered this last year, there''s some info on the subject here LINK   Leicester and Leeds both benefitted from having in excess of £6m tax liability written off and Ipswich had a £5m tax bill reduced to £391k [:@]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="king canary"]ryan- I remember you starting a thread not long ago about how admin would be a good thing, I raised the issue of tax and you were insistent it would not be a problem for us.
[/quote]

No I didnt, I said that administration wouldnt necessarily be a bad thing, not that it would be a good thing. With the obvious positives being the immediate departure of Delia, Munby and Doncaster and the ability for somebody like Tweed, Cullum or A.N Other to pick the club up for a good price. I subsequently withdrew my statement in light of concerns by various small business holders who had had some recent bad experiences. I would encourage you to properly quote me in the future in order to convey my writings in context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mustachio Furioso"][quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Branston Pickle"][quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Branston Pickle"]

Has to be said that there is almost a ''guilty by association'' idea coming into Ryan85k''s posts - it is almost as if anyone mentions anything ''bad'' in the game, our board must be guilty of it. 

[/quote]

Or maybe I was just acknowledging that we havent yet seen the accounts for 2008/2009?  Which suggests that we dont have a clue whether or not we have met tax liabilities for that financial year? Have you considered that angle? and would you be willing to speculate? Deferred tax payments of £600k in the last accounts, can you be entirely confident that those have been met? they probably have but would you bet your house against it? Because that is all I said.

[/quote]

Oh well, I guess we''ll have to agree to disagree - but to me (as an accountant) it does seem that it isn''t wholly necessary to call anything into question based on the fact that we''ve not yet seen the accounts: there''s an implication there that you may have missed.

[/quote]

Well, if your suggesting that you have seen the accounts then fair play, Im not going to be anything but happy that my football club are able to sign players next season obviously. 

On the otherhand, if you havent seen or worked on the accounts then I cant see what ''implication'' you refer to, and I stand by my original suggestion that nobody here knows whether or not we have met tax requirements.

So go on then, are you telling me that we have paid our dues, or are you merely suggesting that as an accountant you have a crystal ball that nobody else on here does?

[/quote]

Your original suggestion ended with "I wouldnt bet your house on it." Which implies a degree of doubt on your part. As has been stated, if there is any sniff of trouble in the world of professional football it seems that our "fans" are only too happy to drag our Club into the mix, whether there''s a shred of evidence or not.

[/quote]

What a stupid response. I wouldnt bet my house on many things, especially not the content of yet to be published company financial report. I will continue to effectively place bets of this nature on the stock exchange with small financial investments, thanks, where such issues are speculated each and every day. My point was solely that there are many clubs with tax arrears, after the pulling of £2.5m of Turners investment, there is every chance that we could be one of them. Cam has kindly pointed out that this was probably not the case at some stage during the financial year, which can only be good news for any Norwich supporter, whether that is you or me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ryan85k"]

[quote user="king canary"]ryan- I remember you starting a thread not long ago about how admin would be a good thing, I raised the issue of tax and you were insistent it would not be a problem for us.[/quote]

No I didnt, I said that administration wouldnt necessarily be a bad thing, not that it would be a good thing. With the obvious positives being the immediate departure of Delia, Munby and Doncaster and the ability for somebody like Tweed, Cullum or A.N Other to pick the club up for a good price. I subsequently withdrew my statement in light of concerns by various small business holders who had had some recent bad experiences. I would encourage you to properly quote me in the future in order to convey my writings in context.

[/quote]Fine not really the main point though is it? I rasied the point in your thread about how the IR were taking a stand against football league cluybs now, whihc is why Southampton have struggled to get any agreement. You said you didnt think that would be a problem for norwich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"][quote user="ryan85k"]

[quote user="king canary"]ryan- I remember you starting a thread not long ago about how admin would be a good thing, I raised the issue of tax and you were insistent it would not be a problem for us.
[/quote]

No I didnt, I said that administration wouldnt necessarily be a bad thing, not that it would be a good thing. With the obvious positives being the immediate departure of Delia, Munby and Doncaster and the ability for somebody like Tweed, Cullum or A.N Other to pick the club up for a good price. I subsequently withdrew my statement in light of concerns by various small business holders who had had some recent bad experiences. I would encourage you to properly quote me in the future in order to convey my writings in context.

[/quote]
Fine not really the main point though is it? I rasied the point in your thread about how the IR were taking a stand against football league cluybs now, whihc is why Southampton have struggled to get any agreement. You said you didnt think that would be a problem for norwich.
[/quote]

Firstly, I dont recall personally responding your reply to that thread, and secondly I have never at any stage speculated as to whether we owe any money to IR. 

Why cant you f*cking simpletons see that I was merely pointing out that the OP has no way of knowing whether we have outstanding taxes, because we have seen the 2008/09 accounts? Why the f*ck cant you bunch of fucking retarded c*nts decipher that simple f*cking point. I am not saying that we owe money, I am saying that nobody knows if we owe money and nobody knows if we dont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="Badger"]Does anyone know how amny clubs are in tax arrears? [/quote]

The Donald Mackintyre show covered this last year, there''s some info on the subject here LINK   Leicester and Leeds both benefitted from having in excess of £6m tax liability written off and Ipswich had a £5m tax bill reduced to £391k [:@][/quote]Thanks Buckethead. This makes it look like paying your taxes is a pretty dumb thing to do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Chairman Lord Mawhinney also wants to explore the possibility of a joint TV deal with the Premier League."

Mawwhinney lives in a dream world, The Premier League was created to stop sharing the money throughout the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is what you said ryan you angry angry man![quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="king canary"][quote user="ryan85k"]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]And many local businesses at the end of

the queue would receive perhaps 5p in the pound for all debts owed,

causing hardship to thousands of local people.  Staff would be sacked. 

Assets stripped.  We''d be a mess on and off the pitch, worse than we

are now.Right back at you - "if people can''t see this then they are stupid."[/quote]

No, thats liquidation. Im talking about administration, Cullum would

be expected to take over liabilities only. Liquidation (selling assets

etc) only takes place without somebody taking the club out of

administration. This involves paying back SHORT term debts. Which

equate to about £2.5m, and rearranging or reconfirming long term debts.

Dont get confused Mr Stupid. For example, Woolworths went into

ADMINISTRATION, no buyer could be found to take over liabilities, thus

that went into LIQUIDATION...... which involved selling off everything

that they owned.

 

[/quote]No you are wrong. Ipswich went into ADMINISTRATION and

had to make an agreement with tier creditors, which saw them only

getting a very small percentage of what they were owed. Add to

this the Tax men are taking a stand against football clubs which is the

main reason Southampton cant get out of Admin at the moment, the IR

wont accept any deal they offer for money owed.[/quote]

And we have current tax liabilities do we? Because as far as the shareholders have been made aware, the only debt is loan debt.

[/quote]

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...