Here we go again...
- Thread starter originallambrettaman
- Start date
It
Detroit Tigers
Castleford Tigers
Liecester Tigers
You make it sound like a startling innovation pulled miraculously from some brilliant business acumen
Its hardly a new idea is it.
Detroit Tigers
Castleford Tigers
Liecester Tigers
You make it sound like a startling innovation pulled miraculously from some brilliant business acumen
The difference is, currently all the others are merely indefinite "Tigers" wheras we're "The Tigers", the definite article. A cut above. It just needs a marketing apprentice to spot & exploit the difference.
I love that list of reasons, it reminds me of how a 6 year old would list why they hated eating vegetables.
Best for me was "Changing his mind"!!!
Yeah your right I made a massive mistake, thank you for picking me up on it.
He doesn't change his mind he simply lies.
I don't understand the listing of vegetables, I have always liked veggies.
which is our nickname already - nobody has said that we are going to be called THE Hull Tigers
Well has far as I can see the money comes from TV rights
That leaves you with merchandise
If aiming at the Far East most can't afford £40 for a jersey
Probably about 3 months wages to most of them
That's why the big boys don't bother. Most are wearing fakes they get mailed over from Walton St market.
Exactly we know how the tv money gets divided leaving minimal amounts from shirt sales
It's been a few years since I did any accountancy (perhaps someone like Peter can correct this)
As Allamhouse and HCT limited (or whatever it's called these days) have the same owner they can offset profits and losses for tax purposes. The loans wil exist as a debtor on Allamhouses books and a creditor on City's books. The income derived from the loans will be seen as taxable income in Allamhouse and tax-deductible expenses in City's books.
He may want to pay down the loans to transfer the money back to Allamhouse (may make the club easier to sell) but then the club may have liquidity issues(no idea when the premier league money is received relative to when the cash is spent but I imagine that TV money and gate receipts makes the assets quite liquid).
With regards to earning more than 5%, you pays your money and takes your choice.
Hull City Tigers Ltd now makes profits and is eating up what is left of the tax losses from our championship seasons. Some of the tax losses have been used by the group. I think there was a note about it in the last accounts.
Last season he repaid his own personal interest-free loan and some of the loan to Allamhouse. From memory I think it was about £7 million including interest. I expect some more of the loan to be repaid this season as well.
The loan interest has now been reduced to 4% from 5%. Hull City Tigers Ltd also made provision to lend up to £6 million to the SMC to pay its debts. Presumably if the Council buy the SMC for a quid us council tax payers could foot that bill.
Yes he does have a liquidity problem because most of his expenses are millionaires that need paying monthly. Last year's accounts showed Hull City Tigers Ltd needed a bank bridging loan.
Finally the amounts due on players for deferred transfer fees is building up as well.
What I meant was that most of our debtors are cash (rather than transfer fees or club shop stock). If we are running out of money then we must not only have liquidity issues but solvency issues as well (which it sounds like you're suggesting we do).
Allam Marine have avoided tax on their profits for the past few years, by offsetting them against City and SMC losses, but as City didn't lose money this season and the SMC's losses were not substantial, that benefit has largely gone.
They'll keep the loans as high as possible, for as long as possible, as it's the most tax efficient way of doing things, they'll avoid a tax burden when they eventually take their cash back out.
I'd have done exactly what they've done, it's a sensible way of doing things as long as we avoid any substantial FFP issues.
They'll keep the loans as high as possible, for as long as possible, as it's the most tax efficient way of doing things, they'll avoid a tax burden when they eventually take their cash back out.
I'd have done exactly what they've done, it's a sensible way of doing things as long as we avoid any substantial FFP issues.
Indeed, but City made a profit, so overall there was no group tax loss to use up.
I was just pointing out that a loss of £5 million on a turnover of just under £6 million is substantial, at least to me.
I haven't actually read the SMC accounts, but isn't the major loss just the exceptional one-off mortgage repayment?
I was in the pub early last night and we got on about the name change me and the brother in law got arguing he isn't to bothered either way I don't want it, we were going on and on when my daughter suddenly said "Dad I'm 18 in 2 years what would you do if I changed my name because I am allowed to do so, I said" you won't do that" she said I know that but if I did would you love me less" I said " cause I wouldn't ". Now I still don't want the name change but it finished our arguing as I looked at my brother in law with a little smirk on his face. Everybody on the table said change the subject which we did but everybody is entitled to there opinion me and the brother in law have been going out drinking and to city together for years yet it just shows how everyone looks at it differently. If our name did change i'd be gutted, would it stop me going, no way.