HMRC Investigation

[Sergey]

Good solid info follows.

It was mentioned in the latest set of Yam accounts that HMRC are currently investigating their dealings. No argument. These are the auditors words.

This investigation is seemingly part of a wider football investigation by HMRC into the use of tax havens by football clubs in the UK. The Yams are not alone. Also being investigated are Blackburn, Fulham, Birmingham Spurs, Ipswich, Hartlepool and the Yams (possibly 1 other Scottish club. I can't confirm who).

The investigations are focusing on the practice that enables overseas players to receive a substantial part of their earnings from the teams as image rights, which the clubs argue generate income around the globe and therefore should not incur full UK tax.

However, HMRC believes many image rights deals - which relate to a club's earnings from merchandise and footage associated with players - are artificial.

The EPL clubs may have a case, to a point, but Hartlepool and the Yams are going to get collared.

That's what the investigation is about.

More will follow in due course. Probably in the press :cool2:

[God Petrie]

Would imagine the other Scottish club is Rangers.

[1two]

Good solid info follows.

It was mentioned in the latest set of Yam accounts that HMRC are currently investigating their dealings. No argument. These are the auditors words.

This investigation is seemingly part of a wider football investigation by HMRC into the use of tax havens by football clubs in the UK. The Yams are not alone. Also being investigated are Blackburn, Fulham, Birmingham Spurs, Ipswich, Hartlepool and the Yams (possibly 1 other Scottish club. I can't confirm who).

The investigations are focusing on the practice that enables overseas players to receive a substantial part of their earnings from the teams as image rights, which the clubs argue generate income around the globe and therefore should not incur full UK tax.

However, HMRC believes many image rights deals - which relate to a club's earnings from merchandise and footage associated with players - are artificial.

The EPL clubs may have a case, to a point, but Hartlepool and the Yams are going to get collared.

That's what the investigation is about.

More will follow in due course. Probably in the press :cool2:

Good work, and nice hat!:thumbsup:

[Hibby70]

i heard this yesterday (and posted on the csaba court case thread). Source who i dont know personally thinks there will be huge penalties that could cause a few of the involved clubs to go to the wall.

[Jonnyboy]

Would imagine the other Scottish club is Rangers.

If so it wouldn't be the first fixed penalty they've had

(shamelessly adapted from a text I got from 65bd :devil:)

[--------]

If so it wouldn't be the first fixed penalty they've had

(shamelessly adapted from a text I got from 65bd :devil:)



I'd have thought David Murray would have had a disabled disc.... :confused:





Oh - THOSE fixed penalties. :rolleyes:

[Removed]

If so it wouldn't be the first fixed penalty they've had

(shamelessly adapted from a text I got from 65bd :devil:)

:greengrin I'll take that as a compliment :aok:

[God Petrie]

If so it wouldn't be the first fixed penalty they've had

(shamelessly adapted from a text I got from 65bd :devil:)

what's the full text - would be handy for noising up some hun pals

[Dashing Bob S]

i heard this yesterday (and posted on the csaba court case thread). Source who i dont know personally thinks there will be huge penalties that could cause a few of the involved clubs to go to the wall.

I just pray that it's not Hearts we're talking about here.:fibber:


Or Rangers. :fibber:

[Sergey]

i heard this yesterday (and posted on the csaba court case thread). Source who i dont know personally thinks there will be huge penalties that could cause a few of the involved clubs to go to the wall.

A salient point; who were the the Yams high wage earners in recent seasons?

Kingston - Goncalves - Nade - Basso - <insert any other nomad that was there for the shilling>

Not really rocket science to see what was going on, and don't HMRC know it!

The tax man wants his pheckin' dues!

:cool2:

[Dashing Bob S]

Let's hope it's not a tragedy of '86 proportions...





...not that I remember much about what happened, but I've heard people talk about it.

[Sergey]

Let's hope it's not a tragedy of '86 proportions...





...not that I remember much about what happened, but I've heard people talk about it.


You've lost me there, Bob.

Sorry. I missed that era due to Premature Congratulations.

The drugs were good, though!

[Hainan Hibs]

This could be a boot to the balls similar in size to, well, something like being 10 minutes away from winning the league and managing to piss it away, and then getting horsed in the Cup Final to complete one of the biggest embarrassing episodes in World football.

I've heard something like that happened in 86, but couldn't confirm it myself.

I really do hope HMRC have a field day with the yams.

[jgl07]

Good solid info follows.

It was mentioned in the latest set of Yam accounts that HMRC are currently investigating their dealings. No argument. These are the auditors words.

This investigation is seemingly part of a wider football investigation by HMRC into the use of tax havens by football clubs in the UK. The Yams are not alone. Also being investigated are Blackburn, Fulham, Birmingham Spurs, Ipswich, Hartlepool and the Yams (possibly 1 other Scottish club. I can't confirm who).

The investigations are focusing on the practice that enables overseas players to receive a substantial part of their earnings from the teams as image rights, which the clubs argue generate income around the globe and therefore should not incur full UK tax.

However, HMRC believes many image rights deals - which relate to a club's earnings from merchandise and footage associated with players - are artificial.

The EPL clubs may have a case, to a point, but Hartlepool and the Yams are going to get collared.

That's what the investigation is about.

More will follow in due course. Probably in the press :cool2:
The Times have picked this up:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article7127776.ece

[Sergey]

The Times have picked this up:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article7127776.ece

A figure of £9 million was mentioned for Hearts.

Assuming a £6 million loss this current year, that should bring Heart's debts up to the round £50 million.

That's where my info came from.

Robert Watts was the scribbler who produced that article.

[Ryan91]

Times online page not loading for me, anyone else having this problem?

[seanraff07]

A salient point; who were the the Yams high wage earners in recent seasons?

Kingston - Goncalves - Nade - Basso - <insert any other nomad that was there for the shilling>

Not really rocket science to see what was going on, and don't HMRC know it!

The tax man wants his pheckin' dues!

:cool2:

Mikey Stewart.:wink:

He was on £10K a week.:tee hee:

[hibee4life1983]

Har d har har!
Sounds good to me, i think the other team might be DU. I dont know why.

[An Leargaidh]

what's the full text - would be handy for noising up some hun pals

Even better, try noising up any dietHuns you might know with this snippet;

"In 2005, 79% of Lithuanians belonged to the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church has been the majority denomination since the Christianisation of Lithuania in the end of fourteenth century and beginning of fifteenth century."
:faf:
6066 My favourite quote of his late holiness John Paul II was, "Do not accept mediocrity." He could almost have been describing the Yams :devil:

[Hibby70]

That's where my info came from.

Robert Watts was the scribbler who produced that article. my info didn't, it was from someone who i believe works for wur majesty and it wasnt just image rights payments but also included sales and registration payments.

[Kaiser1962]

That's where my info came from.

Robert Watts was the scribbler who produced that article.

This is where the whole administration thing gets on my page three's. Pompey (nothing personal against them) owe shed loads of dosh all over the sarf of Engurlund and to the taxman. Taxman wants his dosh so they go into administration, lose 10 points, and basically carry on as before. Seems very little incentive to pay your bills. Ok they get relegated, which was probably going to happen anyhow, but I would wager if they were in with a chance of a CL spot then this bill WOULD have been paid. As a result of them going into admin before the end of the season they keep the "parachute" payments and all that goes with them.On top of that the small companies that Pompey owed money to take the hit and Pompey walk out at Wembley apparently and virtually unscathed? And to put the tin lid on it they weren't even registered in UK and avoiding UK taxes!

Why did we go through 20 years of Rod being as tight as a ducks proverbial again? I mean STF should have thrown his hands up in horror, taken the 10 point hit (we got relegated anyway) and , aye caramba, we save £20m! Its a bit like getting probation for murder.

[Mikey]

Well something has to give and HMRC need to conclude their investigations as soon as possible.

Either the clubs doing this have to be brought into line and pay the tax due, or HMRC state that it's ok and everyone can do it. The current situation is simply unfair.

[EskbankHibby]

This is where the whole administration thing gets on my page three's. Pompey (nothing personal against them) owe shed loads of dosh all over the sarf of Engurlund and to the taxman. Taxman wants his dosh so they go into administration, lose 10 points, and basically carry on as before. Seems very little incentive to pay your bills. Ok they get relegated, which was probably going to happen anyhow, but I would wager if they were in with a chance of a CL spot then this bill WOULD have been paid. As a result of them going into admin before the end of the season they keep the "parachute" payments and all that goes with them.On top of that the small companies that Pompey owed money to take the hit and Pompey walk out at Wembley apparently and virtually unscathed? And to put the tin lid on it they weren't even registered in UK and avoiding UK taxes!

Why did we go through 20 years of Rod being as tight as a ducks proverbial again? I mean STF should have thrown his hands up in horror, taken the 10 point hit (we got relegated anyway) and , aye caramba, we save £20m! Its a bit like getting probation for murder.

Totally agree with you.

I'm sure i read on here a while back that some twat fan was on the radio saying that administration "was not necessarily a bad thing" and the radio host's response was "well it is for local businesses and creditors".

Morally bankrupt as well as actually bankrupt.

Like others i certainly hope these developments don't adversely affect our brothers from Gorgie, that would be a bitter blow akin to to an end of season collapse in the Tayside/Strathclyde regions between 1985-1987.

[Speedway]

This is a disgrace, the Yams are literally buying their way to 7th place.

[jonty]

This is a disgrace, the Yams are literally buying their way to 7th place.
Given their final points total, you could say they're buying their way to 8th :greengrin

[jgl07]

Times online page not loading for me, anyone else having this problem?
That site can be difficult.

I can't get it to work with Opera but it seems OK with Firefox.

[Woody1985]

This is a disgrace, the Yams are literally buying their way to 7th place.

:tee hee:

[...WentToMowAnSPL]

This is a disgrace, the Yams are literally buying their way to 7th place.

:greengrin:greengrin:greengrin :thumbsup:

[jgl07]

This is where the whole administration thing gets on my page three's. Pompey (nothing personal against them) owe shed loads of dosh all over the sarf of Engurlund and to the taxman. Taxman wants his dosh so they go into administration, lose 10 points, and basically carry on as before. Seems very little incentive to pay your bills. Ok they get relegated, which was probably going to happen anyhow, but I would wager if they were in with a chance of a CL spot then this bill WOULD have been paid. As a result of them going into admin before the end of the season they keep the "parachute" payments and all that goes with them.On top of that the small companies that Pompey owed money to take the hit and Pompey walk out at Wembley apparently and virtually unscathed? And to put the tin lid on it they weren't even registered in UK and avoiding UK taxes!

Why did we go through 20 years of Rod being as tight as a ducks proverbial again? I mean STF should have thrown his hands up in horror, taken the 10 point hit (we got relegated anyway) and , aye caramba, we save £20m! Its a bit like getting probation for murder.
Portsmouth's situation is not so clear. I believe that HMRC are owed something over 25% of the deficit and hence will be in the position to black any agreement they don't like.

Administration was used rather cynically by Motherwell and Livingston to enable them to end long and lucrative contracts for their staff. Motherwell seemed to learn their lesson but Livingston carried on as if nothing had happened and ended up back in the bottom tier.

I don't see Administration as a viable option for Hearts. If HMRC make a decent sized claim stick this could be used as a pretext for Vlad to cut and run and liquidation could be the outcome. The ground will have been transferred to another company as part of a debt for equity swop no doubt along with the contracts of any saleble players.

HMRC could have problems with this claim as I suspect many of the players involved will have been contracted to Kaunas and loaned to Hearts.

Mind you HMRC have enough problems getting Hearts to pay for the undisputed tax claims!

[Caversham Green]

This is where the whole administration thing gets on my page three's. Pompey (nothing personal against them) owe shed loads of dosh all over the sarf of Engurlund and to the taxman. Taxman wants his dosh so they go into administration, lose 10 points, and basically carry on as before. Seems very little incentive to pay your bills. Ok they get relegated, which was probably going to happen anyhow, but I would wager if they were in with a chance of a CL spot then this bill WOULD have been paid. As a result of them going into admin before the end of the season they keep the "parachute" payments and all that goes with them.On top of that the small companies that Pompey owed money to take the hit and Pompey walk out at Wembley apparently and virtually unscathed? And to put the tin lid on it they weren't even registered in UK and avoiding UK taxes!

Why did we go through 20 years of Rod being as tight as a ducks proverbial again? I mean STF should have thrown his hands up in horror, taken the 10 point hit (we got relegated anyway) and , aye caramba, we save £20m! Its a bit like getting probation for murder.

To be fair, administration can be a painful process and can damage a club's future prospects. Pompey were very close to going out of business completely and their future is still by no means assured (althought the administrator they finally appointed seems quite tame). While they are in administration the parachute payments will be used to pay more to their creditors rather than for the future of the club - and that means that those creditors are less likely to accept a settlement that will see the admin order lifted. It should be a last resort, but in some cases it can be used as a business strategy (wrongly IMO).

The bit I object to in the football world is the rule that all "football" debts must be paid in full to the detriment of other creditors - thus Pompey were reportedly gong to have to pay Lens £4m if Dindane played one more game for them while HMRC would have to whistle for a debt that arose many months earlier.

[--------]

Har d har har!

Sounds good to me, i think the other team might be DU. I dont know why.





Oh, PLEASE! :devil:

It's not beyond the bounds of possibility - they have a number of foreign players, and I wonder sometimes how they manage to sign some of the players they do sign....

[truehibernian]

The words "image rights" and "Hearts" in the same sentence :confused: shurely shom mishtake mish moneypenny. They have no image to trade other than being tramps :greengrin

[poolman]

Oh dear, the hypocracy


http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/73091-looks-like-manufactured-united-are-skint/

[Martin]

They really really have no worry about HOMOFC when clearly they are in the same boat. Quicker they go the better :agree:

[Woody1985]

Oh dear, the hypocracy


http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/73091-looks-like-manufactured-united-are-skint/

Right, who's going to own up to this comment?

I can't wait till the russian gangster loses interest in chelski and that manky little team hit the skids... dirty dirty little club

:faf:

[Phil D. Rolls]

If so it wouldn't be the first fixed penalty they've had

(shamelessly adapted from a text I got from 65bd :devil:)

They get very few penalties, as the SFA hates them.


Let's hope it's not a tragedy of '86 proportions...


...not that I remember much about what happened, but I've heard people talk about it.

Sorry, can you tell me more? 86 was a busy year for me, first child on the way, so I wasn't really following football.

Maybe someone has a picture?

[MrSmith]

Sorry, can you tell me more? 86 was a busy year for me, first child on the way, so I wasn't really following football.

Maybe someone has a picture?

this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/7410206.stm


this: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44678000/jpg/_44678017_44672375.jpg

[Jack]

I wonder if the yams are desperately trying to renogociate Mr Barrs alleged £8k a week contract?
.

[timebomb]

Let's hope it's not a tragedy of '86 proportions...





...not that I remember much about what happened, but I've heard people talk about it.

I think the tragic incident you are refering to back in '86 was the first prediction by a cetain Hibs fan that Hearts would be in administration by the end of the week - something (and fair play to him for his persistancy) he has contnued to predict every week since. :wink:

[matty_f]

I think the tragic incident you are refering to back in '86 was the first prediction by a cetain Hibs fan that Hearts would be in administration by the end of the week - something (and fair play to him for his persistancy) he has contnued to predict every week since. :wink:

So it wasnae Albert Kidd screwing your dreams of a title then?

[Dashing Bob S]

I think the tragic incident you are refering to back in '86 was the first prediction by a cetain Hibs fan that Hearts would be in administration by the end of the week - something (and fair play to him for his persistancy) he has contnued to predict every week since. :wink:

Noooo, Senior Yambolino, twas not Bobby here. My prediction was that Hearts would get through one season without having a registered sex offender associated with the club.

I'm pleased to say that (as far as I know) they achieved that distinction this season just ended. I'm sure this means that they get parachuted into the C.L, so all's well that ends well, though there may be an issue about the £51mill stand being UEFA compliant.

[Ryan91]

So it wasnae Albert Kidd screwing your dreams of a title then?

I've heard that name thrown around this forum several times, who is he, what did he do?

[matty_f]

I've heard that name thrown around this forum several times, who is he, what did he do?

You know, I've never been that sure myself, though a quick search on YouTube turned this up:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCjEsN4E85s

[Peevemor]

Is this the guy? :dunno:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Kidd

[bighairyfaeleith]

I think the tragic incident you are refering to back in '86 was the first prediction by a cetain Hibs fan that Hearts would be in administration by the end of the week - something (and fair play to him for his persistancy) he has contnued to predict every week since. :wink:

oh the cringing wound thingy :greengrin

[Leithenhibby]

You know, I've never been that sure myself, though a quick search on YouTube turned this up:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCjEsN4E85s

"Hearts, apparently have lost the championship. 37 games undefeated and sadly on the last day, the last afternoon, the last 10 minutes of this championship, they lose out.

Utterly cruel".... :faf::faf: Archie McPherson..


I never get sick of watching this...:thumbsup:

[matty_f]

"Hearts, apparently have lost the championship. 37 games undefeated and sadly on the last day, the last afternoon, the last 10 minutes of this championship, they lose out.

Utterly cruel".... :faf::faf: Archie McPherson..


I never get sick of watching this...:thumbsup:
Just nicked that quote for my signature. Nice one!:thumbsup:

[KinchHibee]

You know, I've never been that sure myself, though a quick search on YouTube turned this up:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCjEsN4E85s

How much does the second goal remind you of Mixu and Latapy in the 6-2 game :thumbsup:

[Leithenhibby]

Just nicked that quote for my signature. Nice one!:thumbsup:


And it looks right at home.....:cool2:

[Chuckie]

Noooo, Senior Yambolino, twas not Bobby here. My prediction was that Hearts would get through one season without having a registered sex offender associated with the club.

I'm pleased to say that (as far as I know) they achieved that distinction this season just ended. I'm sure this means that they get parachuted into the C.L, so all's well that ends well, though there may be an issue about the £51mill stand being UEFA compliant.


:whistle:

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/east-central/154540-sex-offender-jailed-nine-years-after-going-on-the-run/

[Dashing Bob S]

:whistle:

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/east-central/154540-sex-offender-jailed-nine-years-after-going-on-the-run/

Ooh err...I stand corrected.

[Kaiser1962]

To be fair, administration can be a painful process and can damage a club's future prospects. Pompey were very close to going out of business completely and their future is still by no means assured (althought the administrator they finally appointed seems quite tame). While they are in administration the parachute payments will be used to pay more to their creditors rather than for the future of the club - and that means that those creditors are less likely to accept a settlement that will see the admin order lifted. It should be a last resort, but in some cases it can be used as a business strategy (wrongly IMO).

The bit I object to in the football world is the rule that all "football" debts must be paid in full to the detriment of other creditors - thus Pompey were reportedly gong to have to pay Lens £4m if Dindane played one more game for them while HMRC would have to whistle for a debt that arose many months earlier.

Fair enough CG but I'm no expert (a bit like the Yam accountants!) A good point that administration appears to be like a business strategy which I have no doubt it is. Administration was designed to protect the vulnerable and it appears to a shield that the greedy and corrupt hide behind in order to pump the local business, and anybody else they can. If they've been shrewd enough they walk away with their funds intact. Its a bit like a yam, its not illegal but you just know its wrong and a crime against God

[matty_f]

Just had a wee neb on knockedback to see what they're saying about it, and despite someone actually linking to the Times article naming the Yams, the consensus is generally just that it's Sergey making stuff up.

What utter fannies.:agree:

[Chuckie]

Ooh err...I stand corrected.

He IS a Hearts supporter from Midlothian.

Well known case.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think the tragic incident you are refering to back in '86 was the first prediction by a cetain Hibs fan that Hearts would be in administration by the end of the week - something (and fair play to him for his persistancy) he has contnued to predict every week since. :wink:

No, that would ring a bell. I'm hearing "dundee", is there anyone here who has been to Dundee?

[EskbankHibby]

Is this the guy? :dunno:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Kidd


Considering Sir Albert's preperations for that season i'm surprised he managed to make such an impact, here he is in 1985.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jy4tMySp5o

(bear with it, he first appears a minute in, slow day at work)

[--------]

No, that would ring a bell. I'm hearing "dundee", is there anyone here who has been to Dundee?



I went to Dundee in 2004.

It was closed. :rolleyes:

[HibeesLA]

So it wasnae Albert Kidd screwing your dreams of a title then?

It was probably the last time he dreamed of being screwed.

[matty_f]

It was probably the last time he dreamed of being screwed.

Wee Airdrie Jambo disagrees.:greengrin

[Luna_Asylum]

To be fair, administration can be a painful process and can damage a club's future prospects. Pompey were very close to going out of business completely and their future is still by no means assured (althought the administrator they finally appointed seems quite tame). While they are in administration the parachute payments will be used to pay more to their creditors rather than for the future of the club - and that means that those creditors are less likely to accept a settlement that will see the admin order lifted. It should be a last resort, but in some cases it can be used as a business strategy (wrongly IMO).

The bit I object to in the football world is the rule that all "football" debts must be paid in full to the detriment of other creditors - thus Pompey were reportedly gong to have to pay Lens £4m if Dindane played one more game for them while HMRC would have to whistle for a debt that arose many months earlier.

can you please explain what makes an administrator "tame"

[Pedantic_Hibee]

They'll be oblivious to it.

They're too busy proclaiming Vlad as the King and welcoming Barr to Hearts, suggesting he ditched the Hobos to join them....when if you read the actual quotes, he said nothing of the sort. All he said was that he talked to Yogi but ended up at Hearts, nothing more to it.

That font of knowledge, PTBCAL then states he had accepted 1800 basic at Hibs before joining Hearts for 4300. Sooo, not only has he confirmed (FACT!!) that Barr's simply chasing the money, there's no doubt a sideways dig that Hearts pay better wages than us. However, don't get into the thinking that they can afford more wages than Hibs, because they can't. They're just happier to slap another 4k a week on the maroon credit card.

Will they ever learn?

Oh aye, and as my opening gambit suggests, Vlad is now the mutt's nuts because he's given his manager permission to talk to players that he wants.....he's a pioneer ol' Vladdy isn't he? Welcome to the 21st century, Hearts fans, it is pretty common for an owner to allow a manager to manage. In fact, it's standard practice at pretty much every other club in the world. But don't let that cold hard fact get in the way of you jumped-up flumps collectively sliding yourselves up and down the Romanov boaby whilst screaming out "KING" as you hit the vinegars.....fuds.

[EH6 Hibby]

That font of knowledge, PTBCAL then states he had accepted 1800 basic at Hibs before joining Hearts for 4300. Sooo, not only has he confirmed (FACT!!) that Barr's simply chasing the money, there's no doubt a sideways dig that Hearts pay better wages than us. However, don't get into the thinking that they can afford more wages than Hibs, because they can't. They're just happier to slap another 4k a week on the maroon credit card.


Is it just me or does this make them complete idiots if it's true? If he was prepared to accept £1800 with Hibs, then surely all Hearts would have to do is offer him £2000 per week to persuade him to sign for them instead? I heard a similar story about Ian Black when he signed, I was told he was about to sign for us for around £1500 then they swooped in and offered him £6000 per week. So either they are complete muppets or they have to offer players well over the odds to get them to even consider signing for their joke of a team. :titanic:

[Jack]

I heard it was £8k.
.
Maybe the rest was image rights?
.

[jgl07]

can you please explain what makes an administrator "tame"
There were suggestions in the Guardian that the administrator overstated the Portsmouth debts in such a way that the proportion owed to HMRC was below the level where they would have a veto on any deal to pay the creditors a percentage of the debts.

It appeared that a company were shown as being owed a sum by Portsmouth when in fact they owed them the money.

[Luna_Asylum]

There were suggestions in the Guardian that the administrator overstated the Portsmouth debts in such a way that the proportion owed to HMRC was below the level where they would have a veto on any deal to pay the creditors a percentage of the debts.

It appeared that a company were shown as being owed a sum by Portsmouth when in fact they owed them the money.

Very interesting - I missed that story.
Doesn't sound like the actions of a tame man.
What perhaps is not universally known is HMRC are extremely devious.
A decent administrator will act accordingly.
The bit which leaves me confused is the attitude of concerned citizen posters who object to players being paid their wages and other clubs being paid what is owed to them in preference to the tax man.
The revenue make billions every year from football. Thats $ that comes from fans pockets.
So they lose out on a few million now and then - big deal.

[Caversham Green]

Very interesting - I missed that story.
Doesn't sound like the actions of a tame man.
What perhaps is not universally known is HMRC are extremely devious.
A decent administrator will act accordingly.
The bit which leaves me confused is the attitude of concerned citizen posters who object to players being paid their wages and other clubs being paid what is owed to them in preference to the tax man.
The revenue make billions every year from football. Thats $ that comes from fans pockets.
So they lose out on a few million now and then - big deal.

The administrator is expected to act independently of the previous management - the example that jgl07 gives could lead to the conclusion that this guy isn't doing so, and there are other similar examples including the circumstances of his appointment in the first place.

My concern is that one group of otherwise ordinary trade creditors is given preference over others - the legality of that arrangement must be questionable and is almost an invitation for corrupt practices. The revenue are a different case however, in that the money owed to them never actually belonged to Portsmouth FC in the first place.

I do agree that HMRC can be very devious, and I take great pleasure in stuffing them whenever I get the chance, but ultimately it is our money that Pompey have hosed up the wall on overpriced players and ugly managers (now that Avram's left surely JJ is on the shortlist for his replacement).

[Luna_Asylum]

The administrator is expected to act independently of the previous management - the example that jgl07 gives could lead to the conclusion that this guy isn't doing so, and there are other similar examples including the circumstances of his appointment in the first place.

My concern is that one group of otherwise ordinary trade creditors is given preference over others - the legality of that arrangement must be questionable and is almost an invitation for corrupt practices. The revenue are a different case however, in that the money owed to them never actually belonged to Portsmouth FC in the first place.

I do agree that HMRC can be very devious, and I take great pleasure in stuffing them whenever I get the chance, but ultimately it is our money that Pompey have hosed up the wall on overpriced players and ugly managers (now that Avram's left surely JJ is on the shortlist for his replacement).

Thats a revenue quote. It's also complely irrellevent.

[Caversham Green]

Thats a revenue quote. It's also complely irrellevent.

It's a fact and entirely relevant to the point I'm making.

[Luna_Asylum]

It's a fact and entirely relevant to the point I'm making.

It's not a fact its your opinion.

If I give Hibs cash to get into a game or buy something from the club shop I consider it to be their money until they decide what to do with it.

The only people I have heard quote your line are revenue debt collectors.

What point were you making by the way and why do you say the administrator is tame?

[Peevemor]

It's not a fact its your opinion.

If I give Hibs cash to get into a game or buy something from the club shop I consider it to be their money until they decide what to do with it.

The only people I have heard quote your line are revenue debt collectors.

What point were you making by the way and why do you say the administrator is tame?

VAT charged by businesses is not their money. They are simply collecting it for the government.

[Caversham Green]

It's not a fact its your opinion.

If I give Hibs cash to get into a game or buy something from the club shop I consider it to be their money until they decide what to do with it.

The only people I have heard quote your line are revenue debt collectors.

What point were you making by the way and why do you say the administrator is tame?

You consider wrongly. The only reason Hibs add VAT to your purchase is that they are acting as collectors for HMRC - likewise, the only reason your employers don't pay you your gross salary. That means that Pompey's customers and employees have paid their taxes in good faith only for Pompey to keep it for their own benefit. It is not my opinion it is a fact that will be acknowledged by anyone in a financial profession. If you've only heard the revenue saying that you are listening to the wrong people.

I've explained why I said the administrator seems to be tame - do you not understand what I'm saying or are we arguing about the meaning of the word "tame"?

[Dr Jimmy]

Sorry Luna, but Caversham is correct. VAT is effectively a tax on the consumer (Sales tax would have been a better name), therefore if you are buying anything from a football club (entry, strip, season tkt etc) you are making a purchase as a consumer and if the item is "Vat-bale" then this portion of the price goes to the Government. Therefore the club is effectively collecting the money for the Gov and is duty bound to declare and pay it.

[matty_f]

It's not a fact its your opinion.

If I give Hibs cash to get into a game or buy something from the club shop I consider it to be their money until they decide what to do with it.

The only people I have heard quote your line are revenue debt collectors.

What point were you making by the way and why do you say the administrator is tame?

What Caversham posted is correct.

[Luna_Asylum]

Sorry Luna, but Caversham is correct. VAT is effectively a tax on the consumer (Sales tax would have been a better name), therefore if you are buying anything from a football club (entry, strip, season tkt etc) you are making a purchase as a consumer and if the item is "Vat-bale" then this portion of the price goes to the Government. Therefore the club is effectively collecting the money for the Gov and is duty bound to declare and pay it.

Thats part of the story but not all of it. Hibs will only have to hand over part of the VAT they collect. You have to include in the equation vat they have have paid out do you not?

I thought it was a debate but everything caversham writes is a "fact" so its all quite pointless.

Do you understand what makes the administrator seem tame? I don't.

Don't get the bit about everybody doing things in "good faith" either! What's all that about?

[Luna_Asylum]

What Caversham posted is correct.

what the the admistrator seems tame?

[Peevemor]

Thats part of the story but not all of it. Hibs will only have to hand over part of the VAT they collect. You have to include in the equation vat they have have paid out do you not?

I thought it was a debate but everything caversham writes is a "fact" so its all quite pointless.

Do you understand what makes the administrator seem tame? I don't.

Don't get the bit about everybody doing things in "good faith" either! What's all that about?

Yes, but for a company like Hibs they collect VAT on the vast majority of their income (admissions, advertising, sponsorship, etc.) but do not pay VAT on the bulk of their outgoings (wages, loan and interest payents). Therefore most of the VAT collected belongs to the government.

[degenerated]

what the the admistrator seems tame?

i think he means that the money collected for vat at no time belongs to the jamtards, or whoever, they are merely acting as a collecting agent.

that isn't up for debate i'm afraid - it is indeed a FACT

[jgl07]

On a related subject the Herald is running a 'think the unthinkable' story about Rangers going into administration:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/rangers/the-notion-of-rangers-going-into-administration-may-be-unthinkable-but-the-circumstances-are-ripe-for-drastic-action-1.1029326

[Dr Jimmy]

Thats part of the story but not all of it. Hibs will only have to hand over part of the VAT they collect. You have to include in the equation vat they have have paid out do you not?

I thought it was a debate but everything caversham writes is a "fact" so its all quite pointless.

Do you understand what makes the administrator seem tame? I don't.

Don't get the bit about everybody doing things in "good faith" either! What's all that about?

As Hibs are VAT registered they either claim the VAT back or do not pay it in the first place when buying anything with VAT.
I assume the good faith part is that if a company you are trading with gives you their VAT number then you can sell to them minus the VAT.
You are confusing a purchase by a consumer with the purchase by a VAT registered company.

As for the administrator being tame.............:dunno:

[matty_f]

what the the admistrator seems tame?

No, but I think you know what I was referring to.


i think he means that the money collected for vat at no time belongs to the jamtards, or whoever, they are merely acting as a collecting agent.

that isn't up for debate i'm afraid - it is indeed a FACT

:agree:

[jgl07]

As Hibs are VAT registered they either claim the VAT back or do not pay it in the first place when buying anything with VAT.
I assume the good faith part is that if a company you are trading with gives you their VAT number then you can sell to them minus the VAT.
You are confusing a purchase by a consumer with the purchase by a VAT registered company.

Hibs I assume will charge 17.5% VAT (for now!) on ticket money and merchantise and food sales.

They will be able to offset any VAT paid on supplies etc.

The tax is on 'Value added' that is the difference between outgoings and incoming cash.

This is paid quarterly in arrears. There is no concept of not changing VAT to someone who is VAT registered.

[basehibby]

Very interesting - I missed that story.
Doesn't sound like the actions of a tame man.
What perhaps is not universally known is HMRC are extremely devious.
A decent administrator will act accordingly.
The bit which leaves me confused is the attitude of concerned citizen posters who object to players being paid their wages and other clubs being paid what is owed to them in preference to the tax man.
The revenue make billions every year from football. Thats $ that comes from fans pockets.
So they lose out on a few million now and then - big deal.

Ahem... THEY???? I think you maybe mean WE. HMRC collects money which in turn goes towards government budgets - which are in turn (or should be) spent on PUBLIC projects - any shortfall of which must ultimately be paid for by whom???
US - the ordinary tax payer - now I've got plenty of sympathy for other creditors in these situations, but I object to your view that OUR money should be taken for granted as some sort of slush fund to bail them out when things go tits up - if it were up to me, football creditors would only be given preference in cases where it could be shown that doing otherwise would put their interests in peril.
EG - young footballers on £200 a week should be re-paid in full while multi-millionaire EPL veterans would just have to join the queue with HMRC and everyone else.

[Caversham Green]

Thats part of the story but not all of it. Hibs will only have to hand over part of the VAT they collect. You have to include in the equation vat they have have paid out do you not?

I thought it was a debate but everything caversham writes is a "fact" so its all quite pointless.

Do you understand what makes the administrator seem tame? I don't.

Don't get the bit about everybody doing things in "good faith" either! What's all that about?

VAT- VAT is a tax on consumers. Hibs are a VAT-registered supplier rather than a consumer, so they do not have to pay VAT (with a few specific exceptions). They do however have to collect on behalf of HMRC VAT on the goods/services they supply. The most practical arrangement for applying this is to operate a running account whereby hibs record the amount of tax they have collected on one side, and the amount they have paid but are not actually liable for on the other. The net amount is settled monthly or quarterly. This does not mean Hibs are entitled to keep any part of the VAT they collect, it's simply a mechanism to make the system work. In any case if VAT is involved, it is the net amount that Pompey have failed to pay over.

Tame administrator - I used the word "tame" to indicate that in my opinion the administrator did not appear to be acting as impartially as he should be - a completely separate issue from the tax liabilities - that's an opinion, not a fact. You may disagree with either my choice of word or my sentiment, but frankly, I don't much care - that's a fact, not an opinion.

Good faith - The consumers pay 17.5% more than the agreed value of the goods/services on the understanding that the extra amount is a tax collected by the supplier on behalf of the government. In other words they are trusting the supplier to forward their tax payment to HMRC, otherwise they would not pay the supplier that 17.5%.

I really don't feel inclined to say much more on the subject.

[TornadoHibby]

VAT- VAT is a tax on consumers. Hibs are a VAT-registered supplier rather than a consumer, so they do not have to pay VAT (with a few specific exceptions). They do however have to collect on behalf of HMRC VAT on the goods/services they supply. The most practical arrangement for applying this is to operate a running account whereby hibs record the amount of tax they have collected on one side, and the amount they have paid but are not actually liable for on the other. The net amount is settled monthly or quarterly. This does not mean Hibs are entitled to keep any part of the VAT they collect, it's simply a mechanism to make the system work. In any case if VAT is involved, it is the net amount that Pompey have failed to pay over.

Tame administrator - I used the word "tame" to indicate that in my opinion the administrator did not appear to be acting as impartially as he should be - a completely separate issue from the tax liabilities - that's an opinion, not a fact. You may disagree with either my choice of word or my sentiment, but frankly, I don't much care - that's a fact, not an opinion.

Good faith - The consumers pay 17.5% more than the agreed value of the goods/services on the understanding that the extra amount is a tax collected by the supplier on behalf of the government. In other words they are trusting the supplier to forward their tax payment to HMRC, otherwise they would not pay the supplier that 17.5%.

I really don't feel inclined to say much more on the subject.

Sums the substance of the matter up pretty well if I may say! :wink:

[Luna_Asylum]

Sums the substance of the matter up pretty well if I may say! :wink:

Indeed it does.

I did not know before that tame means impartial but if its a fact its a fact.

I also did not know that a consumer had the right to withhold vat on a purchase if he did not trust the seller to pay on the vat to the taxman. Seems odd as it leaves no liability on the buyer either was - same as if your employer doesn't pay any tax deducted from your wages there is no liability on you.

[Caversham Green]

Indeed it does.

I did not know before that tame means impartial but if its a fact its a fact.

I also did not know that a consumer had the right to withhold vat on a purchase if he did not trust the seller to pay on the vat to the taxman. Seems odd as it leaves no liability on the buyer either was - same as if your employer doesn't pay any tax deducted from your wages there is no liability on you.

Oh dear, we really are getting picky now aren't we.

First of all, you have comprehensively misunderstood my "tame" comment - nothing I can do about that, but I assume it's the word rather than the sentiment you object to.

Second, a consumer does have the right to attempt to negotiate a reduction in the price he pays. If he chooses to base that on his mistrust of the seller then the seller can either accept or reject his offer. Either way, the seller's VAT registration number is a guarantee that he is collecting VAT on behalf of HMRC and the buyer's liability is discharged on payment to HMRC's collector. The liability then lies between the seller and the Revenue. The same applies to PAYE and an employee is entitled to assume that his income tax and NI have been paid when he suffers the deductions from his gross wage.

It's much easier to understand than you're making it appear.

[RoYO!]

To be honest, all I'm looking for is someone to tell me how long I've got to wait till they're wound up :bye:

[Phil D. Rolls]

To be honest, all I'm looking for is someone to tell me how long I've got to wait till they're wound up :bye:

I called a bunch of them racists once, and they didn't like it one bit.

Will this do? :dunno:

[Carheenlea]

To be honest, all I'm looking for is someone to tell me how long I've got to wait till they're wound up :bye:

ditto.

I`m bored with all things Hearts, it was funny at first all this carry on but the joke passed it`s sell by date a long time ago. I just wish they will hurry up and die.

[HibbyAndy]

I called a bunch of them racists once, and they didn't like it one bit.

Will this do? :dunno:



No.

Coz Wee Airdie jambo has a coloured telly.