Another story hits the headlines in the football world that illustrates the divide between the haves and have nots. This story is the one about the Liverpool official who thinks that clubs in the premiership should be able to negotiate their own TV deal abroad and not share the cash around. The argument is based on interst in an individual club from abroad. The example cited was that they played in Malaysia where 80,000 people went to see them. This presumably says to Liverpool that they are huge in the East. My argument would be that the East has a huge interest in football and are generally starved of a high standard locally so turn on their TV sets to see it from arguably the best league in the World. Ergo given a chance to see one of the teams live they turn out en masse. A senario I would put is with a bit of a different slant on it. Suppose Liverpool were playing a local team out there on the same day that Manchester United were doing the same. The Stadiums could each take the entire population of Malaysia. Which one would be almost full and which one would be almost empty? As much as they would hate to admit it, the Manchester stadium would be the one packed to the rafters. There is only one team these days from England that is World known and renowned and the rest get known only vaguely through TV. So the Manchester TV deal would be huge in comparison to the rest. What then happens in this Country having negotiated their own rights. A team of little know reputation gets promoted to the premiership and lets use Blackpool as that example. Who in Malaysia has really heard of Blackpool? Are there millions of followers out there? It stands to reason that their TV deal would be very little indeed. Their ability to compete financially with the rest of the league who are established is already limited and so it is almost etched in stone before the league kicks off that they are doomed to fall through the relegation trap door. The famous 4 as the league would become would dominate the premiership forever more and there would be no point in the rest turning up. It is almost like that now without any further hording of cash by the few. I think the man from Liverpool, and this isn't just a Liverpool bashing opinion, is deluded. The deal they would get out of this would not be anywhere near what others would get and they themselves would soon fall down the pecking order following more years of failing to win the league or cups. Do we want a similar league to Scotland where they have 2 who can win anything or Spain or indeed most other leagues in Europe. I don't for sure and if my club, don't laugh, ever got anywhere near the premiership would I want them to be doomed before a ball is kicked.
Maybe it is time for the big guns here and in europe to go it alone and have their own european league. It would hurt the football left behind but it would give it a kick up the ars*. Good things would have to come out of it. The pl, fa and fl would be given the chance to clean up football. They could rearrange the leagues and its finances to be fairer to the lower reaches of the football pyramid. Of course there would have to be the will to do so, but if the big clubs left I don't think they would have any choice. Also if this did happen then the likes of sky could split coverage of football, super euro league and english leagues (on the down side would be more money for the aussie scumbag). I would consider subsribe to it if it meant see more of clubs like Argyle. If I had my way then the clubs that went to the euro league would not be included the fa or league cup. Just think clubs other than the likes of man u, city, chelsea etc not winning the pl or any of the cups. What a breath of fresh air that would be! A pipe dream I know but wishes do sometimes come true!
There are merits in a break-away league it's true and I don't think it would hurt football in England domestically. It would not hurt the armchair brigade as they don't actually go to matches anyway. It would hurt the people of those Cities however who do go. An away day every other week to some far flung place would be out of the reach of the ordinary fan. Would most of us miss them? I doubt it. Does the finances need shaking up? Absolutely it does but not in the way this man is suggesting.
And.........then there was Plymouth............and Kagami trying to get Japanese players into an English club........plus the spin-off sales that would then attract...........that now sounds like light years away............where did it all go wrong............in fact it sounds a bit Ridsdale-ish doesn't it ???
To tell the truth Sensible, I don't give a flying f*** about their supporters, it would be their problem. Maybe they would start to go to other local clubs when their beloved teams were away. They could go to small clubs like crewe, rochdale, burnley, birmingham, orient and spurs to name a few. Or just watch the big boys on sky.
Harsh maybe from me, but when I see quotes from dickheads like the one from liverpool fc it makes my blood boil!
Some of the comments are a bit off beam: the article is about revenue distribution arising from showing the Premier League abroad amongst the Premier League clubs. It doesn't [appear] to affect the likes of us directly, neither is it about tour matches played abroad. I think that it is contrary to the interests of fans [if people that far away can be genuinely taken has having fans' rights] that TV rights should be fragmented to serve the clubs. All that does is that require people to pay several subscriptions if they want full coverage. Also, it's surely not how much income is generated but what is done with it that's the problem in football. I don't have any difficulty with people abroad paying more: they probably pay far less than we do now for the same thing. What I do object to is the Premier League clubs and their Championship wannabes burning up their vast incomes in bloated transfer fees and wages, prejudicing the chances of "proper" clubs being able to compete and indeed surviving. Complaining about the income side of the equation is the wrong battleground. We should be supporting the EUFA initiatives on controlling club expenditure in such away that they operate as sustainable businesses without regular injections of Russian or Gulf money. Nice reminder of the arrogance and selfishness of the biggest clubs mind you!
It is pure arrogance because as sensible said, would you want to watch your team if they had no chance at all? Most Premier League clubs like Bolton, Everton and Aston Villa acheive good positions in the league every season but will never have the opportunity to do better because they get less TV money than that of the Manc's, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal and therefore struggle to compete against them most of the time. The big story that annoyed me was when Panarama exposed the Premiership footballers who use tax loopholes to avoid wages being heavily taxed.
Tax avoidance is perfectly legal. It's up to the government & tax authorities to enact legislation as they see fit, subject to international structures and treaties. It's up to them to balance the needs of the economy versus other national tax regimes and moral issues, not the individual tax payer. Tax evasion is illegal. Was anyone accused of anything that's actually illegal?
No but it annoyed me that these players on over £100,000pwk seemed to make out they were so hard done by that it was fair enough. I had to laugh though when I read today that poor John Hartson is surviving on only £250pwk as his creditors are sorting out his gambling losses. Welcome to reality John!
Thing is Hobo and I wonder if Distant would agree, most if not ALL high earners or self employed SHOULD employ a competent accountant - this statement obviously does not involve you know who!! Anyway, the point is, me in my small business employ an accountant, to minimise the amount of tax I pay, why not??? Old saying I heard somewhere: "If your accountant is not saving you money, get another accountant"
The system is based on the Government trying to take every last penny and the taxpayer trying to avoid that. I don't see why anyone should pay more than they are legally obliged to, having taken all legal avoidance & management measures. After all, they'll only waste it. I agree the whinging is distasteful - Ashley Cole being the classic case. Let's not forget what these guys are doing is legal even if some think it's immoral. The guy who does a bit of work for you for cash to dodge tax & VAT is completely outside the law and that doesn't seem to attract the same criticism....... and the total amounts lost there over the whole country are much higher than on the top few percent of high incomes.
There are no rights or wrongs in tax evasion, it is against the law and therefore has to be only wrong. However, it is the amounts of wages some of these footballers, as we are talking football here, get that makes dodging tax a bit of an anathma to the common folk. People struggle on £300/£400 per week having to pay a high proportion for rent or mortgage out of that. There often isn't any scope for them to avoid paying tax and therefore are taxed up to the maximum. When you earn in excess of £100k per week, even if you lose half of that in tax it still leaves you with a mega income. For these people to then complain about what they are left with really does become quite laughable. The only opportunity for the common folk to gain something is mostly only through the "black market" job on the side. This involves breaking the law of course but most fair minded people think that to do this is not that bad which is why it is not condemned out of hand. There is no way for ordinary earners to gain in any other way. If you worked 9 to 5 for somebody else for a set wage each month then why would you hire an Accountant. You simple wouldn't. Also any other way you try to better your life or that of your family generally has a snag attached where you pay. A brief example of this. My wife and I gave up a lot to buy a second property some years ago. Alot cheaper than properties now. My wages were not in the mega camp so we gave up things like holidays, a car, eating out and always shopped around for bargains on day to day living. There would have been no other way to afford it and we were thinking of the future and it being an investment. Years on my son was paying £650 a month on rent and we had 2 properties so we allowed him to move into one of them rent free. We now would like to transfer the property to him as a gift. Bare in mind I paid tax on all of my earnings and paid for this house out of what was left. To give him the house and thereby making no money whatsoever ourselves we would have to pay capital gains tax for the privilege. That would amount to around £50k. Could I avoid this whoever I hired. No is the answer and in my humble opinion this is total robbery. If I was a millionaire I could probably get around this. The more you have the more you keep seems to be the norm. Hiring somebody on the side and saving £100 on VAT seems less robbery than what the Government practice.
Then you should have employed an Accountant BEFORE you did anythinhg set up a trust or something, I'm not an expert, but I know a couple of people who are!!
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing oldnickyb. This was back in the 80's when my kids were small. Nobody in my family had ever had any money to speak of on either my side of the family or my wife's. Ordinary common folk who had no idea about finances but just wanted to work hard and leave a legacy for their kids. The only accountant ever to be spoken of was a turf accountant and generally only for the Derby or Grand National. Nobody then would have dreamt that rents would be so high now and the house purchase was simply an investment. My parents lived in one of the houses rent free also and that as they say was the way of things. I never ever thought that one day it would cost me so much just to give away something I and my wife had worked for and lets be honest why would I think that 30 years on. As I said, isn't hindsight wonderful.
Morning Sensible - here we go again, I agree with that 100%, my life right now would be much better with 20/20 hindsight. BTW I was not having a pop. For god's sake man, post something that I can disagree with!!
We may well think £100k per week plus is too much for any footballer to be paid. However, the number of people willing to pay through the nose to attend Premier League games & to watch it on Sky tells you something different. Leaving that aside though, what earthly right has any Government to take 50% of anyone's income as you are suggesting? Surely the broad principle is that except for the sick & the elderly, everyone should pay for what they consume over their lifetimes. Certainly the better paid can be expected to pay a bit more to cover vulnerable groups but I see no reason why they should subsidise the rest to any significant extent. Bizarrely, I do have some sympathy for footballers and even entertainers whose peak careers probably last no more than 10 years. To get to the top, any educational opportunities they may have had will have been sacrificed. During that 10 years you are saying they should be hammered for tax to keep tabloid mentalities happy but in the next 40 or 50 years of their lives, the State will provide next to no support at all to them or their children unless they fall into abject poverty. Where's the equity in that? In many respects they have much more right to our sympathy than the lower-profile group who inherited their wealth and enjoy it on a life-long basis. Lastly, the original subject of this post was entirely LEGAL tax avoidance. The cash-in-hand odd job man's activities are entirely ILLEGAL and probably mean he's working without proper insurance, is probably fly tipping the waste he takes away and host of other things. He's probably not meeting his obligations on the minimum wage, National Insurance, pensions provision, health & safety, holidays, insurance and possibly immigration status in respect of the lad who works with him either. You know it and I know it and we also know that the second part of that is especially wrong as it's taking advantage of some poor person just because they need a job. If we defend the latter we can hardly attack the former.
Too true Distant, don't expect agreement on that on here - anytime soon!! As a matter of interest have YOU ever paid cash in hand for any odd job etc??
I know it seems obscene the amounts of money some of these guys earn and trying to minimise the tax they pay as a bit petty but can anyone honestly say they wouldn´t do the same? Didn´t see the program myself but to whine about it again seems petty but again don´t we all complain about how much income tax, NI etc we get deducted and yes just about everyone will take a discount for cash in hand if offered. Well heads up this isn´t to save the petrol money when they drive to the bank to put the cheque in, it's too avoid tax (sssh don´t let the IR hear it´s a secret) As for a European league it may help short term but then you would get a few new clubs dominating the new English league, TV rites and income imbalances and we would be back to square one again in time. Can´t really see a workable solution to it as it would defie the basic economics of supply and demand. At the end of the day if someone is prepared to pay for a product at a stupid price be it match tickets, sky, souvenirs etc then you are going to take that money and to hell with the other smaller clubs. Any director and board of a club not applying this ethos are remit in their duties. Simple answer is there is no simple answer unfortunately. On the flip side I remember when we came down and the wage structure was discussed several of us commented that once finances were sorted our bigger gates would give us more buying power than some of the less supported teams, pretty much the same mind set as the bigger clubs in the Premiership employ. Big fish eat little fish and don´t feel any remorse, that´s life. Is it fair? Well as we are little fish....hell no but if we were a big fish it´s just meat and gravy.
Nicky Of course I have, in fact the description I gave was with a very good chap indeed who did various bits of work around the garden at the old place, with his Polish mate in my mind! I'd recommend him to anyone actually! However, I do know it's wrong, I do know it's illegal and it's not something I'm proud of. I suppose I justify it by saying it's not actually me that's doing the fiddling and he is such a hard & trustworthy worker. I've no reason to think he fly-tips, BTW, that was a general comment but it's reasonable to assume that those who dodge tax are going to contain a significant proportion who are going to see the countryside as a handy alternative to the recycling centre.........
