They supposedly gave Samba £100k/week, though they denied that that was accurate. Of course, that doesn't mean it wasn't more As I said, I'd be pretty surprised if we are actually offering that much.
If it's in the region of 115 p/w then it would be over double what anybody else is on. I'd say that's so unlikely as to be almost a definitive no. My inclination is that the 55p/w is before tax. That makes sense in the context of Gaston'svreported wage etc.
Like most other contract based roles, you are not necessarily PAYE. You'll no doubt remember seeing Riise's payslip online and he certainly was. However, when Tevez caused the bother West Ham, he wasn't even employed by them, his owners were. The recent HMRC cases brought against Rangers showed that tax free offshore funds were also being used legitimately. Sadly (or not depending on your situation) there are many ways of avoiding tax.
As for Dan's comment about Carroll being on 80k and QPR etc, I'm pretty sure that the English media report gross salary, so these figures will be before tax. In Europe they usually report net, so when Gaston said he was getting triple what he was getting at Bologna then that will almost certainly have been after tax. Guess the English media just like to use bigger numbers to prove how crap somebody is
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...r-League-stars-set-scrutiny-tax-payments.html This article is a few months old but says footballers only pay 20% tax. Also says the HMRC don't like it but atm can do nothing.
Ha. In fairness though, Nicola has probably earned our trust. In general I would take any £x per week figure with a little pinch of salt. I am sure most contracts include pages of bonuses, clauses, other perks, all that kind of stuff which has an effect.
I always find HMRC's indignation at tax loopholes to be quite ludicrous. The loopholes themselves have been passed into legislation and are subsequently legitimate. Why bitch about something that's perfectly legal?
I would think most players are PAYE. Obviously you you can do all sorts with image rights etc on top of that but Riise's pay slip was leaked a few years ago and he was PAYE, Tevez's was leaked last year (I think, I remember some people claiming a hoax) and he was PAYE as well. Tevez may have been paid in some strange way at West Ham but I'm fairly sure he was owned by a third party then and that's now been banned. There's been no newspaper report has there? What was said was: "Basic" generally means your standard pay and doesn't include bonuses, image rights etc
I do know what basic means I'm dumb not brain dead. But can't see Saints paying that much before taxe.
Really? Equating what is legal with what is moral is pretty daft isn't it? You can't think of any laws that should be changed or added? The whole point is these loopholes have been overlooked in legislation, not legislated into existence. If there weren't powerful forces at work to keep them in place, they would be closed as soon as they are discovered.
Accountants find loopholes, then HMRC try and close them. That's life. Paying tax is a legal requirement...as long as you stick within the rules, I see no moral aspect. You will pay your taxes was not the eleventh commandment. I have no way of avoiding tax, but not going to get my knickers in a twist as long as rules are complied with. I wouldn't pay anymore than I had to.
Leaving aside the suggestion that anything not in the ten commandments is exempt from morality, you don't see any moral issue with, for example, cleaners paying more tax than billionaires? Nobody's asking anyone to pay more than they have to, they're asking for the laws to more fairly reflect what people are able to pay.
