Tax is 20% of profit over expenditure. You make profit you pay tax, you don't save it. Some clubs are owned by parent companies in tax havens. There's nothing I've seen to suggest anything to do with City or the allams are registered offshore. And I'm sure if they were, it'd have been publicised by now given the scrutiny.
We're getting there. If one of your subsidiaries make a loss, can you apply that to the profits made on other subs to ease the tax burdon on the overall corporation ? Essentially my original question, which you answered - presumably have anyway ? See you've edited your last post. I'm not necessarily asking about offshore havens - the UK tax situation re multi-subsid corporations.
First of all, the post was to tidy up 2 typos, nothing more. Second. Demonstrate a loss elsewhere in the Allamhouse portfolio and you may be onto something, but for it to make sense by design, the losses they've covered elsewhere by deliberately creating a loss at the club, which is probably in excess of 80 million would need to subsidise the tax saving elsewhere.
Could have edited last post to incorporate this but perhaps its time to present your evidence. Of you know something then share it, rather than being patronising and coy. Or are you just speculating?
I was asking a question . You seemed authoritative in you response. I asked a follow up question. That's all. Why the insecurity ?
Point 1, you were mistaken. Point 2, you're making the assertions. If you've discovered something no-one else has then don't you think you should share the evidence, or are you trying to support a suspicion based on nothing concrete. I'm big enough to change my opinion based on facts and I'm sure everyone else is. Floors genuinely yours.
Oh, and so as not to create another edit; does it really matter whether I add a second thought to an existing post or make a thread more messy by creating another? ' now were getting somewhere' are your words so I'd suggest you were being authoritative not me.
I'll say it again, I was asking a question whether or not it was possible for one sub's losses to be transferred to offset other sub's profits. I am not speculating. I have no evidence, hence the original question. And the follow up. Tell me, if you've been following the annual financial reports, if losses from one sub can be used to offset profits from another sub and I'll be happy.
No. Is this an admission ? I may be stupid, but I don't think I'm blind totally. Glad you're houseproud, the mods will be pleased.
I've kept as good an eye as anyone and i can't see how t Admission of what exactly? If I use the edit function it's there to use. I think allamhouse house may be able to offset tax on one company against losses on another, but that would be only come into play if other subsidiaries were reporting a loss, which I'm not sure they were in the years City reported a profit. Even if they were and revenues from city had been recouped by Allamhouse, those revenues would need to exceed the initial investment in city before it could be genuinely called asset stripping. Allam has been open enough that they wish to recoup investment and run city as a self sustaining entity. There's nothing new there and that is what we're dealing with. They've decided it has to wash its own face nd they want their investment back whether i or anyone else likes it or not. L Looks like at one time there was circa 100m of debt to Allamhouse or banks via Allamhouse depending which interview from which Allam you hear. Looks like now that's circa 40m which means the club debt to the parent company has been reduced. I've seen no evidence as yet to suggest the allams have made an overall profit from their tenure at City. My viewpoint is that their cost cutting hs been so severe as to unnecessarily devalue their own asset and that is a screw-up on the on their part. I don't see how they win out of this scenario as it results in their financial loss. You call it asset stripping but as far as I can see this is incorrect by definition as they remain out of pocket on their initial investment and are less likely to recoup that outlay as a result of relegation. I think they miscalculated and screwed up. We're really arguing over semantics. City's prospects are not going to improve whilst they own it, that's clear. But without a return to at least championship level I can't see how on earth they get out of it through a sale or any other means without taking a financial hit themselves. If you know different then please, tell.
Now it's nearly half 4 and I'm off to sleep. If you disagree with the above then present your basis for it. I might be convinced of there's solid evidence to the contrary.
What they'll probably do is reduce the asking price in league 1 by the guaranteed income due from the bowen sale, so 40m will become 25m asking price, which will still leave their valuation too high to attract a serious buyer, and the downward spiral will continue for all associated with the club.
Four? You couldn't have gone at four in my day unless someone lifted you up on their shoulders, unless you were posh and went in the seats.
The Allams have definitely benefited from group tax arrangements, losses in previous seasons at City and the SMC, have been used to reduce the tax on the profits at Allam Marine. It's not just losses in a single year either, losses over a few years can be set against profits in other parts of the group, it's a very common practice and all fairly standard accounting for anyone with multiple companies.
So as a non accountting person, what you are saying is? , they have not only benefitted financially from interest payments and directors premiums and other benefits, but losses made by the club likely affected by interest payments, have actually increased their wealth by not having to pay corporation tax which would otherwise have been payable by other companies in the group...?
You don't seem to have quite got the flavour of the past few pages. Common practice and fairly standard accounting does not fit with the tax fiddle, asset stripping, trousering theories previously espoused. Pah, posting sense, it'll never catch on.
I think the asset stripping debate is a rather pointless one, it's just a matter of semantics. There's no question that they've been systematically selling off the club's playing assets and investing only a tiny percentage of the revenue raised on their replacements.
