Saw this on a luton site. Obviously narked about Watford's signing of Layon from Mexico! Anyone care to ansnwer? Udinese find yet another unemployed footballer They give him to Grenada on a long term contract Grenada announce he will be loaned to Watford Within a week of allegedly signing for Grenada he allegedly signs a long term contract for Watford for an undisclosed fee. It's called money laundering So, did your manager want the player? If he did why go through the nonsense of him signing for Grenada? Is there a Watford fan alive who can come up with a genuine, sporting reason why all of the facts above happened? Agents paid by the wrong company? Undoubtedly. Money laundering? Absolutely. Dual ownership? No, he's without doubt Grenada owned. Flaunting loan rules? Yep. A properly run club? Never again!
Were not Luton Town fined for bad finances at two different times and nearly closed? Watford are using the rules to their benefit, not going outside them.
More importantly Oxhey - what were you doing on a L*t*n board? That whole, for want of a better word, 'argument' smacks of little more than sour grapes and ignorance, with not a little big-headedness thrown in for good measure. Sour grapes = as you pointed out, narked about our ability to sign such players and their inability to do likewise; Ignorance = as Vic pointed out, he/she/it doesn't even know the correct name of the club we signed Layun from, nor, apparently, does he know the meaning of unemployed - although that may not be surprising given his allegiance. As well as that, he obviously doesn't know that we don't actually have a manager - we have a Head Coach whose job it is to - er..coach the players he is given - and, seemingly,nor does he know the loan rules. Big-headedness = his use of the words 'undoubtedly', 'absolutely' and 'without doubt' shows that he expects readers to believe what he has written simply because he wrote it. Not a shred of evidence offered to back up his opinion - for two reasons. There is no such evidence and his opinion is simply wrong
He's someway behind the times if he thinks football is moral! Believe me our owners are probably one of the most honest and open around. As proven when they accepted the rule changes in terms of number of loans allowed.
I saw that on that site and it's just typical of that filth. They have lied and cheated their way through football for years, with mutiple trips into admin with hundreds of small businesses losing £1,000's. Now they think they can hold some sort of moral highground...laugable. They forget that their vice-chairman is a convicted fraudster and one of their new "whiter than white" owners is a convicted drug dealer....
Well, I do have one concern. If you are moving assets around different companies at below market (or indeed above market) prices, you are shifting your tax burden potentially. Say Grenada buy Layun, a cost to them, and sell him to us for nothing. Grenada make a loss on him, which reduces their profits and their tax burden. If we are already making a loss, then the fact that Watford are relatively more profitable than if we bought Layun doesn't matter, as we would not be paying any corporation tax anyway. See the example of Astrazeneca http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...eca-to-pay-UK-505m-to-settle-tax-dispute.html It has been argued that the likes of Starbucks overcharge their UK subsidiary for services (e.g. the Starbucks brand) that are supplied by the central European company, thereby shifting profits away from the UK taxman and to the more generous tax authorities in the Netherlands or Luxembourg or wherever. I am not saying we are evading tax, but if you start shifting major assets between subsidiaries without proper transfer pricing, one day the taxman might call. Perhaps if Watford get promoted, and make are in line for huge profits from Premier League TV money, we will be the ones buying players from Latin America then immediately selling them on to Udinese .....
thats a bit unfair dan if you add up all the drug dealers in there area thats only about 1000 and there gates are much better than that but did you know that they take there customers along lol
I think that the number 5 plays a large part in this. That was the number of years he was contracted to Club America from 21/12/09. On 30/12/14, he transferred to Granada - 5 years later as an out-of-contract player. No fee paid - which must surely mean that his 'market value', in accounting terms, is exactly the same - or do the tax authorities have the power to set a market value of whatever they think an asset is worth, and charge accordingly? I can't see that that would prove very popular in the world of business. His market value must surely be whatever Watford paid Granada, and if that was nothing, what's all the fuss about? If there was a fee involved in that move, wouldn't surely be reflected in the accounts of both clubs when they are finalised?
i think its what our tax man calls a short arm deal but as most of our clubs are not making profits the tax man will not care in fact we are getting assets at less than true cost and when we sell on that player we would be making a bigger profit and have a happy bunny of a tax man
If Granada brought him over when he was out of contract, then you are right that they would have paid Club America nothing, so I think it would be fine for us to pay nothing to Granada. The market value is zero because there is no asset (no contract) to buy. The auditors are meant to ensure that transactions between commonly owned companies are set at an arm's length price, as if they were completely separate companies. The tax authorities could step in if they don't think this has happened (as in the Astrazeneca thing I linked to). To be honest, I think the visa explanation is the reason why Layun came via Granada.
Oh I get it - the luton post came originally from a drug dealer who was fed up when someone called Layon didn't turn up in Grenada with the latest stash from a Mexican drug baron and has totally confused this with Layun being signed by Granada and then by Watford. Obvious mistake to make if your an idiot.
