Because, the owner isn't just going to say "ok, fair enough I'll reducethe rent for absolutely no reason." is he? Cellino is getting rid of Thorp arch, he promised to buy it back within a week of buying leeds and then pushed that back to October or November or whenever he said. Now he is trying to reduce the rent for all of 5 months (if he does still plan on buying it back then) otherwise he is going to quit thorp arch.... Its just his way of making an excuse to fans to quit thorp arch imo. and never buy it back despite his promise.
Over qualified...... Thank your lucky stars. Top of my manifesto would be a jihad against scummers, southerners and estate agents!
Have you considered that he is just not prepared to keep on pumping his own cash into an Operation full of hidden debts. Yes it's his own fault for not carrying out proper dd, but I can fully understand why he might be saying I am not paying anymore than I have to. Also perhaps he is playing a long game, by letting it be known that he ain't going to be a cash cow for every tom, dick or Harry he is probably stopping a fair amount of "it's LUFC and I can charge top dollar" bollocks from agents, players, suppliers and landlords. It makes perfect sense to nail costs down and should have always happened. We are still seen as the soft touch we were under Ridsale and o'deary. That's how we ended up with the likes of Hunt, donut, EHD and fat paddy on the books on silly money.
Hunt is on nothing resembling silly money supposedly, and Cellino's playing a very risky game with Thorp Arch, one that could **** us near permanently.
Yea thats probably what it is Thats right up there with what someone put up on here 2 years ago when he posted "i think Warnock is deliberately losing games to get more transfer money out of Bates"
Beg to differ, Aski. My figures were a guess - I made that clear at the time, however, 2 of your points are quite wrong. VAT is effectively payable on anything that is not exempted. And footballers are not exempted. Indeed, they couldn't be closer to the term 'luxury goods'. There is no doubt about this in my mind. Also, 48 months is very, very common - in fact, almost bog standard for these transfers, unless stipulated otherwise, of course. Very few clubs have large chunks of money lying about, and most prefer to spread the cost as far as they can. I concede that I've probably got it wrong with both agents being paid out of the pot. But then I was probably underestimating what they were being paid anyway.
Josh,was the buy back quote reffering to ER not TA? If we lose TA we could train elswhere,but,as is now all down to catogories if we lose cat 2 which TA has could seriously affect or youth setup. Seems MC is just pushing for a decrease in rent,don't think the owner would find many people willing to rent it,and is probably green belt so not buildable.
Firstly I wasnt arguing over your exact figures, they actually dont matter, what I was pointing out, is in my opinion, you had two payments that don't have to be made, ie one to an agent and one to the VAT man. The actual figures are inconsequential, those payments do not have to be made. Regarding your estimation about the level of the agent fee, on the figures you used, I dont think you were far off. I know I made a post when at the end of last season, the fees paid to agents by all clubs was listed, and seem to recall that we paid about 16%, with the average being around 15.4%, so maybe the agents fee should be 1.2m instead of 1m. Secondly here's a copy of an answer from a tax accountant friend of mine, who deals in the entertainment sector So in a way we are both correct and wrong, it all depends who we sell too. However, what I would say is that the VAT element on any transfer sale, would be offset by the VAT paid by ourselves. Again whilst this offset may not take place straight away, from a share holder within the club point of view, an additional investment of the sum that will be offset against that VAT payment, could be made. The way your post reads is that any money paid for VAT is lost from the club, when in actuality it wouldn't be, and again if we sell overseas, then the VAT question doesnt even arise. I would imagine that the amount the club is able to reclaim from VAT purchases over a 3 month period would be more than enough to offset what we may have to pay from any proposed sale. In addition, if we purchase a replacement player from within the UK, then we would also be able to offset the VAT paid on the element of that transfer fee On the second point I will disagree to some extent. Yes possibly your view point could be a worse case scenario, and when club has to sell then yes I can imagine the buying club, doing everything possible to get favourable terms with regards to payment, but unless a club had to sell, why would they agree to such draconian terms http://metro.co.uk/2013/08/24/willi...ea-after-snubbing-tottenham-transfer-3936168/ http://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/jul/01/cristiano-ronaldo-one-off-payment-real Ok the above deals involve wealthy clubs, who can afford to make shorter term payments,but the sums involved are also substantial, but I'm sure all the purchasing clubs would have preferred to make their payment in installments, you have to presume the selling clubs were not agreeable to this. I know Real Madrid wanted to pay Spurs the Bale money over 5 installments but no term of payment was reported, again I dont think Spurs would accept that over a 4 year period. http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation....a-transfer-manchester-united-chelsea-finances However lets find evidence of a more reasonable transfer http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...o-despite-knowing-Colombians-arrest-2012.html So we have Oldham buying a player for £50k in August 2012, and withholding the final payment in January 2014, a period of 16 months. Whilst it is hard to gather actual evidence, I would anticipate that most transfer installments would be paid over a period of 12 to 24 months, unless the selling club was desperate for an immediate cash injection In addition found this blog on the subject of transfer fee installments, and again this is how I would imagine payment to be made. The blog is by Chris Bailey is a former finance director at Watford and Fulham FC, so I imagine he has a good idea how transfer installments normally work. http://bornoffside.net/2011/03/the-cost-of-a-player-is/ So I refute your claims WJ, over to you to convince me otherwise
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-two-years-winning-Leeds-takeover-appeal.html I am starting to wonder if he will meet any of those promises. He later said he would buy back ER by the end of the year, if he hasn't then he has lost my belief and faith in him
Elland I'd already seen that page, unfortunately its nothing to do with VAT Its to do with the payment of a share of the transfer fee to the player being transferred, which is then subject to a taxable payment, is how I understand it, from the following sentences within that page. Cant see anything in that part about VAT being paid by the selling club. Next part goes on to say Again this is to do with payments made to players on completion of a transfer by the selling club, its more of a taxable benefit to be paid by the player. The last 3 paragraphs Other than the mention of a payment of 5% to the Football League, this is all to do with payments to players. So I'm not sure what relevance this has , to mine and White Jocks debate about VAT on transfer fees
Hey guys, I'm giving in. Too much information! I just wanted to illustrate how big a bite is taken out of a transfer fee, as many perceive that an £8m sale means £8m should be invested in new players, when in fact you'd be lucky if the board have less than half of it to make a decision on.
LOl Sorry WJ, at least I'm willing to defend my position, unlike certain other posters who would either ignore your points or just go abusive. But yes I would agree that a sale with a fee of £8m would probably leave around £4-5m for reinvestment
