Save the Children

[Billy Whizz]

See our lagging neighbours have renewed Save the Children as their shirt sponsors for the next 3 years. Much as I think I it’s a great charity, can’t see them paying Hearts to be on their shirts!

So who’s funding it, as Hearts won’t be doing this for free, as they could have got a tidy sum from another sponsor!

[Johnny_Leith]

It's the same donor that's helped them anonymously recently.

[MyJo]

Anonymous donor paying for the charity to be on the strip, just like the anonymous donor who sunk millions into the new stand......nothing suspicious in that at all, move on, everyone knows hearts would never be involved in any such dodgy dealings.

[Bostonhibby]

Save the children, rob the Lady Haig Poppy Fund.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

[cocteautwin]

Does anyone know the VAT implications on this transaction?

If it was a normal sponsor then would HMFC have to invoice the sponsor the sponsorship amount plus 20% VAT which is then payable to HMRC? Can they get away with not charging the VAT if the customer is a registered charity? I suppose this would only work if donor was regularly giving charitable donations anyway, outside of the HMFC shell.

Dunno. Might be dodgy? Could it be dodgy?

I wonder if this needs to be added to the £15.5m calculation on amounts injected in to the Hearts project since Admin? On top of the £100m or so of outsider money they've had over the years.

[007]

See our lagging neighbours have renewed Save the Children as their shirt sponsors for the next 3 years. Much as I think I it’s a great charity, can’t see them paying Hearts to be on their shirts!

So who’s funding it, as Hearts won’t be doing this for free, as they could have got a tidy sum from another sponsor!

It's a charity that only survives thanks to the regular donations and the same applies to Save the Children.

[hibees 7062]

They are paid 500k a year from a fan involved with S T C

[cocteautwin]

They are paid 500k a year from a fan involved with S T C

How does that work? Does the fan (let’s call him Mrs B) pay STC the £500k on the understanding that STC then pay £500k to HMFC for the shirt sponsorship? Conveniently avoiding the 20% VAT if it was a normal commercial transaction?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[El Gubbz]

Save the children... but release a statement blaming the South East Asian children for no producing the new stands seats without an order being placed

[Hibernian Verse]

Prepare to be misquoted on Kickback OP.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Onceinawhile]

I know they're our rivals and that, but having a go at them for putting a charity on their shirt and pretending it's dodgy is a bit sad no?

[cocteautwin]

I know they're our rivals and that, bu5 having a go at them for putting a charity on their shirt and pretending it's dodgy is a bit sad no?

No. There's definitely an angle here. HMFC are somewhat struggling for cash to finish their stand. There's got to be a reason why they aren't fully utilising sponsorship as an income stream. Altruism is not a character trait of our neighbours as history has shown.

[CropleyWasGod]

Does anyone know the VAT implications on this transaction?

If it was a normal sponsor then would HMFC have to invoice the sponsor the sponsorship amount plus 20% VAT which is then payable to HMRC? Can they get away with not charging the VAT if the customer is a registered charity? I suppose this would only work if donor was regularly giving charitable donations anyway, outside of the HMFC shell.

Dunno. Might be dodgy? Could it be dodgy?

I wonder if this needs to be added to the £15.5m calculation on amounts injected in to the Hearts project since Admin? On top of the £100m or so of outsider money they've had over the years.

What is the actual transaction? I'm not sure what you're driving at here.

The supply of advertising to charities is zero-rated for VAT purposes.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[cocteautwin]

What is the actual transaction? I'm not sure what you're driving at here.

The supply of advertising to charities is zero-rated for VAT purposes.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

No-one knows what the transaction was. The talk in the news is of the whole thing being "funded" by an anonymous donor. If it's just a straight advertising for free then surely no "funding" is needed. I can't believe that HMFC have turned down sponsorship income just to benefit a charity.

[Jack]

Wealthy fan(s) chip in what a normal sponsor would pay them, probably because they can't attract a normal sponsor, and get to choose what goes on the strip.

They've been doing it for years. I'm sure if there was anything untoward we would have heard about it by now.

The UNICEF link to Barcelona was paid for Qatar Airways. Hertz aren't unique.

[CropleyWasGod]

No-one knows what the transaction was. The talk in the news is of the whole thing being "funded" by an anonymous donor. If it's just a straight advertising for free then surely no "funding" is needed. I can't believe that HMFC have turned down sponsorship income just to benefit a charity.Who is saying that it's advertising for free?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[cocteautwin]

Who is saying that it's advertising for free?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

It's free to Save The Children.

[WhileTheChief..]

^^ Which is a good thing no?

A charity benefits from it and you’re trying to work an angle to try and show that Hearts are at it. Why not just say fair play and move on?!

[CropleyWasGod]

It's free to Save The Children.Still not getting your point.

STC gets free advertising. Hearts get sponsorship income. No VAT scam. No tax scam.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[WhileTheChief..]

The supply of advertising to charities is zero-rated for VAT purposes.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Could we have this bit in bold please?!

And maybe a short paragraph explaining VAT in relation to businesses :wink:

[cocteautwin]

^^ Which is a good thing no?

A charity benefits from it and you’re trying to work an angle to try and show that Hearts are at it. Why not just say fair play and move on?!

Yes, of course it's a good thing for STC. I just want to know why HMFC have turned down a sponsorship income stream. It doesn't seem right that a business that is making cut backs on the playing field and doesn't have enough cash to cover capital expenditure is turning down a form of income that is vital to so many clubs.

If it's 100% for charitable purposes then fair enough, good on them. Just asking if there's a possibility they are up to something. It's not beyond the realms of possibility given their financial history.

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes, of course it's a good thing for STC. I just want to know why HMFC have turned down a sponsorship income stream. It doesn't seem right that a business that is making cut backs on the playing field and doesn't have enough cash to cover capital expenditure is turning down a form of income that is vital to so many clubs.

If it's 100% for charitable purposes then fair enough, good on them. Just asking if there's a possibility they are up to something. It's not beyond the realms of possibility given their financial history.

Still confused.

The poster above says that HMFC are being paid by a supporter.

There really is no evidence that they're up to something.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[cocteautwin]

Still not getting your point.

STC gets free advertising. Hearts get sponsorship income. No VAT scam. No tax scam.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I'm just questioning the transaction and would be interested to know if there's another story aside from altruism. Take the following example:

- If BET365, for example, wanted to sponsor HMFC for £500k then HMFC would invoice them for £500k + £100k VAT = £600k.
- Budge has been sponsoring STC for many years with anonymous donations, say, £500k a year
- She notes that this £500k can be injected in to HMFC VAT free as it's a charity
- This means that someone has got the sponsorship money in to HMFC for £100k less than it would have cost a commercial business.

Ok, delusional b0ll0cks perhaps but it just seems strange to me that they might be turning down sponsorship funds from elsewhere. I think it should be questioned.


Whatever the answer is, I do wonder if this extra 500k pa needs to be added to the overall total of monies injected in to Project Hearts since Admin? Should this total now be £15m + £1.5m (3 years STC) + £0.5m (this year STC) = a running total of £17m ????

[cocteautwin]

There really is no evidence that they're up to something.



Yes, I know. It's worth questioning though. :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm just questioning the transaction and would be interested to know if there's another story aside from altruism. Take the following example:

- If BET365, for example, wanted to sponsor HMFC for £500k then HMFC would invoice them for £500k + £100k VAT = £600k.
- Budge has been sponsoring STC for many years with anonymous donations, say, £500k a year
- She notes that this £500k can be injected in to HMFC VAT free as it's a charity
- This means that someone has got the sponsorship money in to HMFC for £100k less than it would have cost a commercial business.

Ok, delusional b0ll0cks perhaps but it just seems strange to me that they might be turning down sponsorship funds from elsewhere. I think it should be questioned.


Whatever the answer is, I do wonder if this extra 500k pa needs to be added to the overall total of monies injected in to Project Hearts since Admin? Should this total now be £15m + £1.5m (3 years STC) + £0.5m (this year STC) = a running total of £17m ????

That's just not the case.

If Bet365 give HMFC £600k, they claim £100k back from the VATman. HMFC give £100k to the VATman. Net effect is HMFC up £500k, Bet365 down £500k, VAT neutral.

If a charity gives HMFC £500k, net effect is they're down £500k, HMFC up £500k, VAT neutral.

if a private individual gives HMFC £600k, they're down £600k, HMFC up £500k, VAT up £100k.


I've been marking exams this week, VAT included. Thus far, "delusional bollocks" is not a comment I've had to make. Thus far. :greengrin

[MyJo]

Yes, of course it's a good thing for STC. I just want to know why HMFC have turned down a sponsorship income stream. It doesn't seem right that a business that is making cut backs on the playing field and doesn't have enough cash to cover capital expenditure is turning down a form of income that is vital to so many clubs.

If it's 100% for charitable purposes then fair enough, good on them. Just asking if there's a possibility they are up to something. It's not beyond the realms of possibility given their financial history.

More likely that someone has paid hearts a decent amount of money for shirt sponsorship rights, has then “donated” these rights to save the children allowing them to utilise the advertisement space that they have purchased and then classing it as a charitable donation to affect their tax liabilities or something like that.

Good deal for save the children and a positive image projected by the club in having a charity as their sponsor after years of Ukio Bankas and Wonga but I’m guessing the angle being played by the anonymous donor is one of tax avoidance but ensuring the money goes to hearts rather than paying it directly to a charity.

[CropleyWasGod]

Could we have this bit in bold please?!

And maybe a short paragraph explaining VAT in relation to businesses :wink:

Ain't no such thang :greengrin

[danhibees1875]

That's just not the case.

If Bet365 give HMFC £600k, they claim £100k back from the VATman. HMFC give £100k to the VATman. Net effect is HMFC up £500k, Bet365 down £500k, VAT neutral.

If a charity gives HMFC £500k, net effect is they're down £500k, HMFC up £500k, VAT neutral.

if a private individual gives HMFC £600k, they're down £600k, HMFC up £500k, VAT up £100k.


I've been marking exams this week, VAT included. Thus far, "delusional bollocks" is not a comment I've had to make. Thus far. :greengrin


Is the insinuation that if a private individual wanted to give Hearts £500k then the best way for them to do that would be to bypass option 3 by using option 2. Hearts get the same amount of £, but the individual saves themselves £100k?

I don't actually know how the transaction worked behind the scenes though. My assumption was that it wasn't the case, and that someone gave hearts £X, and said "in exchange put STC on your shirts" - and presumably scenario 3 has then been applied.

[CropleyWasGod]

Is the insinuation that if a private individual wanted to give Hearts £500k then the best way for them to do that would be to bypass option 3 by using option 2. Hearts get the same amount of £, but the individual saves themselves £100k?

I don't actually know how the transaction worked behind the scenes though. My assumption was that it wasn't the case, and that someone gave hearts £X, and said "in exchange put STC on your shirts" - and presumably scenario 3 has then been applied.

In that scenario, it depends who does the invoicing. If it's HMFC, it's £600k. If it's STC, it's £500k; the individual would have to stipulate that the funds are restricted, ie ring-fenced for HMFC.

[GreenPJ]

Is the insinuation that if a private individual wanted to give Hearts £500k then the best way for them to do that would be to bypass option 3 by using option 2. Hearts get the same amount of £, but the individual saves themselves £100k?

I don't actually know how the transaction worked behind the scenes though. My assumption was that it wasn't the case, and that someone gave hearts £X, and said "in exchange put STC on your shirts" - and presumably scenario 3 has then been applied.

:agree: Reads like that to me - however presumably that would make STC complicit in agreeing to a 'deal' that was for tax avoidance purposes - they are willing for Hearts to use the STC logo in return for passing that donation by the individual straight through to Hearts?

[cocteautwin]

In that scenario, it depends who does the invoicing. If it's HMFC, it's £600k. If it's STC, it's £500k; the individual would have to stipulate that the funds are restricted, ie ring-fenced for HMFC.

Yes, that hits the nail on the head. Budge gives STC £500k donation with the stipulation the money goes to HMFC, a payment (VAT free) for shirt sponsorship. There's our angle.

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes, that hits the nail on the head. Budge gives STC £500k donation with the stipulation the money goes to HMFC, a payment (VAT free) for shirt sponsorship. There's our angle.

The angle being?

HMFC get £500k. End of. No loss of VAT.

And where did Budge come from? If she did that, the donation would have to be shown in the accounts, so it's hardly anonynmous.

[southfieldhibby]

However and whoever, fair play to the jambos on this. Better than bookies or peeve ffs.

[cocteautwin]

More likely that someone has paid hearts a decent amount of money for shirt sponsorship rights, has then “donated” these rights to save the children allowing them to utilise the advertisement space that they have purchased and then classing it as a charitable donation to affect their tax liabilities or something like that.

Good deal for save the children and a positive image projected by the club in having a charity as their sponsor after years of Ukio Bankas and Wonga but I’m guessing the angle being played by the anonymous donor is one of tax avoidance but ensuring the money goes to hearts rather than paying it directly to a charity.

If this is the case then the monies should certainly be added to this:

"Whatever the answer is, I do wonder if this extra 500k pa needs to be added to the overall total of monies injected in to Project Hearts since Admin? Should this total now be £15m + £1.5m (3 years STC) + £0.5m (this year STC) = a running total of £17m ????"

Actually I forgot this years FOH contributions. Is the money now injected in to project Hearts closing in on £20m since Admin? A lot of money to pay for one season finishing 3rd and nothing else to show for it.

[NAE NOOKIE]

After what happened Hertz needed a boost to the club's image ... lets face it a real big boost ... The 'Save the Children' deal is a perfect way to do that, its pretty clever to be fair to them. What it isn't any way shape or form is a selfless act by the club where they have forgone revenue in order to help a charity. this is purely a business move and in my opinion a pretty cynical one ... its a fine line between helping a charity and using them.

Hertz sail pretty close to the wind when it comes to abusing their WW1 connection to sell merchandise and this IMO is no different.

[Onceinawhile]

The angle being?

HMFC get £500k. End of. No loss of VAT.

And where did Budge come from? If she did that, the donation would have to be shown in the accounts, so it's hardly anonynmous.

If it was done that way presumably the charity claims gift aid as well and they win out of it again.

Do not understand why people care.

Charity gets open sponsorship for free. Hearts don't lose out or materially gain.

[cocteautwin]

The angle being?

HMFC get £500k. End of. No loss of VAT.

And where did Budge come from? If she did that, the donation would have to be shown in the accounts, so it's hardly anonynmous.

If it was sent to STC first and then on to HMFC I don't think this would need to be disclosed as a related party transaction would it?

[CropleyWasGod]

If it was sent to STC first and then on to HMFC I don't think this would need to be disclosed as a related party transaction would it?If it was ring-fenced, yup. It's effectively a donation from AB.

Still not getting your "angle", though. Nobody is losing out here.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

If it was done that way presumably the charity claims gift aid as well and they win out of it again.

Do not understand why people care.

Charity gets open sponsorship for free. Hearts don't lose out or materially gain.

:agree:

In fact, if it has been done in a way that someone just wanted to give money to Hearts, then they could have just done so and left Hearts to be sponsored by something more corporate, like a bookies. :wink:

I don't think there is much to beat Hearts with here, there's plenty elsewhere for people though. :greengrin

[hughio]

Can we please just leave this?

Save the Children is far better than any gambling logo.

We need to acknowledge that.

Some wealthy Hertz supporter has saved themselves tax by arranging it.

[Kato]

If it was done that way presumably the charity claims gift aid as well and they win out of it again.

Do not understand why people care.

Charity gets open sponsorship for free. Hearts don't lose out or materially gain.

I think they do, part of the deal is that Hearts are paid to have to wear the logo.

[CropleyWasGod]

If it was done that way presumably the charity claims gift aid as well and they win out of it again.

Do not understand why people care.

Charity gets open sponsorship for free. Hearts don't lose out or materially gain.

If the donor wasn't an individual, there wouldn't be Gift Aid. If it was, though, you're right; quids in.

Hearts do gain, though.

[Onceinawhile]

I think they do, part of the deal is that Hearts are paid to have to wear the logo.


If the donor wasn't an individual, there wouldn't be Gift Aid. If it was, though, you're right; quids in.

Hearts do gain, though.

Not anymore than they would do if they were receiving the same amount from another sponsor though is what I was trying to drive at.

[CropleyWasGod]

Not anymore than they would do if they were receiving the same amount from another sponsor though is what I was trying to drive at.

Gotcha. Agreed :agree:

[Joe6-2]

See our lagging neighbours have renewed Save the Children as their shirt sponsors for the next 3 years. Much as I think I it’s a great charity, can’t see them paying Hearts to be on their shirts!

So who’s funding it, as Hearts won’t be doing this for free, as they could have got a tidy sum from another sponsor!

I sincerely hope not, I give to this great cause, but I would hate the thought of a penny of mine going to them

[Kato]

Not anymore than they would do if they were receiving the same amount from another sponsor though is what I was trying to drive at.

Not in a monetary sense but they do get pretend there is some sort of largesse on their part, which many of their fans believe and which just isn't the case.

[Onceinawhile]

Not in a monetary sense but they do get pretend there is some sort of largesse on their part, which many of their fans believe and which just isn't the case.

So they get a tiny, minuscule, reputation boost in the eyes of fans in scottish football who care about sponsors. So maybe 12-13 people.

It's really not worth it.

[Geo_1875]

When it was first announced did they not say that there were no offers on the table from "acceptable" sponsors so they were proud to be linked with Save The Children, or something like that. If you replace acceptable with any, that might be nearer the truth.

[worcesterhibby]

Shall we all just agree that a great charity benefits and it's certainly better than encouraging people to take out 1000% loans with Wonga.

Not everything Hearts do is evil, illegal or immoral.

[blackpoolhibs]

The Hearts shop have a special offer on, its selling fathers day cards in packs of 4.

[Albanian Hibs]

The Hearts shop have a special offer on, its selling fathers day cards in packs of 4.

😂

[heretoday]

However and whoever, fair play to the jambos on this. Better than bookies or peeve ffs.

Hear Hear. Some folk are a little over-obsessed with our city rivals methinks.

[Bostonhibby]

The Hearts shop have a special offer on, its selling fathers day cards in packs of 4.[emoji23][emoji23][emoji106]

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

[Diclonius]

I'd rather we had a charitable organisation as our sponsor than a gambling company whose motives/objectives are pretty much to do the exact opposite.

[Keith_M]

However and whoever, fair play to the jambos on this. Better than bookies or peeve ffs.


Fair play to the person who actually gave the money.... the Jambos are only doing it because they're being paid.

[PatHead]

Is there any advantage to the donator in giving the money to Hearts rather than donating it directly to the charity?Personally if I was in the position to make such a large donation I would want as much of it as possible to go to the charity. I can’t believe that a shirt sponsor deal would raise the profile of the charity by much.

[CropleyWasGod]

Is there any advantage to the donator in giving the money to Hearts rather than donating it directly to the charity?Personally if I was in the position to make such a large donation I would want as much of it as possible to go to the charity. I can’t believe that a shirt sponsor deal would raise the profile of the charity by much.

First off, and Hsl started the practice on here recently, isn't the word "donor"? [emoji16] Apologies if I'm not down with the modern jive.....

It's potentially better for an individual donation to be better for the charity, due to Gift Aid. If it's a corporate donation, it makes no odds to the charity.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Billy Whizz]

Shall we all just agree that a great charity benefits and it's certainly better than encouraging people to take out 1000% loans with Wonga.

Not everything Hearts do is evil, illegal or immoral.

Are STC getting any money from this, or is it just awareness of the charity on TV etc

[cocteautwin]

Are STC getting any money from this, or is it just awareness of the charity on TV etc

I had a look on kickback to garner further information on this deal. According to them the money is donated by 3 local businessmen, £500k to HMFC £500k to STC, £1m a year for the past 3 years and the next 3 years. That adds up to another £3m cash injected in to project HMFC on top of the £15m I’ve previously calculated. It really does highlight the big difference between us and them when it comes to finding suckers to inject cash in to a bottomless money pit. Good on them.

It would almost be worth it for those HMFC donor fans if it had translated in to results on the pitch but fortunately for us they seem to want to continue letting their incompetent manager/DOF continue with his money wasting sprees of average signings and the occasional galactico. We’re in the middle of Craigie Boy’s third Jambo clearance/replacement cycle at the moment aren’t we?

It really is an astonishing amount of cash to get them to where they are today. 6th.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eyrie]

I'm looking on the bright side. After spending all that money for three seasons, Hearts are heading in the right direction.

[CropleyWasGod]

I had a look on kickback to garner further information on this deal. According to them the money is donated by 3 local businessmen, £500k to HMFC £500k to STC, £1m a year for the past 3 years and the next 3 years. That adds up to another £3m cash injected in to project HMFC on top of the £15m I’ve previously calculated. It really does highlight the big difference between us and them when it comes to finding suckers to inject cash in to a bottomless money pit. Good on them.

It would almost be worth it for those HMFC donor fans if it had translated in to results on the pitch but fortunately for us they seem to want to continue letting their incompetent manager/DOF continue with his money wasting sprees of average signings and the occasional galactico. We’re in the middle of Craigie Boy’s third Jambo clearance/replacement cycle at the moment aren’t we?

It really is an astonishing amount of cash to get them to where they are today. 6th.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

3 years at 500k pa is 1.5m [emoji6]
Less VAT of 2.5m.


Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[cocteautwin]

3 years at 500k pa is 1.5m [emoji6]
Less VAT of 2.5m.


Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I had a little look in to the future: 4 x £500k plus 2 x £500k for the next 2 years. I have it as a deferred creditor on the balance sheet in my head. ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

I had a little look in to the future: 4 x £500k plus 2 x £500k for the next 2 years. I have it as a deferred creditor on the balance sheet in my head. ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkLess the VAT

The initial 1.5m has already been accounted for.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[cocteautwin]

Less the VAT

The initial 1.5m has already been accounted for.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I don’t think anyone knows the true financial nature of the transaction, all just speculation. £0.5m pa seems a round enough figure to include each year with or without VAT. I hadn’t included the previous £1.5m in my £15m so we need to add in (in my head anyway) £1.5m + £0.5m to the £15m plus this years FOH contributions (round down to 0.5m?)

Running total of “additional’” cash injected in to HMFC project since admin:

£17.5m (+£1m in the next 2 years). Creeping up towards £20m.

Astonishing amounts when you think what it’s being spent on.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

I don’t think anyone knows the true financial nature of the transaction, all just speculation. £0.5m pa seems a round enough figure to include each year with or without VAT. I hadn’t included the previous £1.5m in my £15m so we need to add in (in my head anyway) £1.5m + £0.5m to the £15m plus this years FOH contributions (round down to 0.5m?)

Running total of “additional’” cash injected in to HMFC project since admin:

£17.5m (+£1m in the next 2 years). Creeping up towards £20m.

Astonishing amounts when you think what it’s being spent on.





Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkSo. To sum up. [emoji58]

Nobody knows who's paying the sponsorship. Nobody knows how much it's costing. Nobody knows how much Hearts are getting.

But it's bad.

That about right? [emoji41]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[monktonharp]

I know they're our rivals and that, but having a go at them for putting a charity on their shirt and pretending it's dodgy is a bit sad no?behave. there's a money angle in this. without a doubt. at it, again

[monktonharp]

^^ Which is a good thing no?

A charity benefits from it and you’re trying to work an angle to try and show that Hearts are at it. Why not just say fair play and move on?!you worked with Oxfam by any chance?

[monktonharp]

So. To sum up. [emoji58]

Nobody knows who's paying the sponsorship. Nobody knows how much it's costing. Nobody knows how much Hearts are getting.

But it's bad.

That about right? [emoji41]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalksounds about right:wink:

[Bob1875]

Does anyone know the VAT implications on this transaction?

If it was a normal sponsor then would HMFC have to invoice the sponsor the sponsorship amount plus 20% VAT which is then payable to HMRC? Can they get away with not charging the VAT if the customer is a registered charity? I suppose this would only work if donor was regularly giving charitable donations anyway, outside of the HMFC shell.

Dunno. Might be dodgy? Could it be dodgy?

I wonder if this needs to be added to the £15.5m calculation on amounts injected in to the Hearts project since Admin? On top of the £100m or so of outsider money they've had over the years.

You need to get a life, as do most folk on here. It’s a ******g football strip, with a sponsor, that’s all. The obsession with Hearts on here is another level sometimes. Just worry about them we play them at football.

[WhileTheChief..]

you worked with Oxfam by any chance?

Not sure how you get that from my post but best I just to go with the ‘anything Hearts do is bad’ line I guess.

[heid the baw]

You need to get a life, as do most folk on here. It’s a ******g football strip, with a sponsor, that’s all. The obsession with Hearts on here is another level sometimes. Just worry about them we play them at football.

Could not agree more

[FilipinoHibs]

That's just not the case.

If Bet365 give HMFC £600k, they claim £100k back from the VATman. HMFC give £100k to the VATman. Net effect is HMFC up £500k, Bet365 down £500k, VAT neutral.

If a charity gives HMFC £500k, net effect is they're down £500k, HMFC up £500k, VAT neutral.

if a private individual gives HMFC £600k, they're down £600k, HMFC up £500k, VAT up £100k.


I've been marking exams this week, VAT included. Thus far, "delusional bollocks" is not a comment I've had to make. Thus far. :greengrin

So let's say an individual called Mrs B gives STC 500k who then give it to HMFC. STC gets free advertising and Mrs B saves £100k?

[cocteautwin]

So. To sum up. [emoji58]

Nobody knows who's paying the sponsorship. Nobody knows how much it's costing. Nobody knows how much Hearts are getting.

But it's bad.

That about right? [emoji41]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

LOL. We can only speculate and estimate.

[cocteautwin]

You need to get a life, as do most folk on here. It’s a ******g football strip, with a sponsor, that’s all. The obsession with Hearts on here is another level sometimes. Just worry about them we play them at football.

Thanks Bob.

The point I’m trying to keep alive is the cash gap that currently exists between us and our near neighbours and has done so for most of my life.

Who knows what’s going to happen in a few years when they have capital projects paid off and can then start *****ing these “injections” on their team. Aberdeen have finished second for the last 4 years due to their bigger budget.

I grew up in the 80s and watched HMFC reap the rewards of a much bigger budget than HFC. To be honest I think they under achieved for the £100m that was sunk into that 30 year project.

It’s important that someone keeps tabs on the new post-admin project and occasionally has a peep on a whistle and points out they’re not doing it the same way as us.

Being a prudent individual myself I kinda like the calm measured long term approach we are taking to running the football club rather than a begging bowl, panic buying, money wasting approach that has been adopted over in Gorgie. Long may they continue to pay Malaury Martin his weekly wage for doing nothing apart clocking in for training.

I’ll be taking forward the figure of £17.5 + 1m in any future discussions on this matter :-)

[BSEJVT]

So the point of this thread was to highlight the fact that Hearts have an income stream that we are concerned about.

We can address that concern by contributing more (collectively or individually) to HSL

Its a lot simpler than the endless navel gazing over the terms of this sponsorship deal.

Btw one thing you can be absolutely sure of is that if you have ever done HMRC over in any way in the past your card is well and truly marked for the future and they will go to end of the earth to investigate you going forward and make sure ever last 1p is accounted for and paid to them.

I think we can be pretty relaxed that whatever the arrangement is that it is above board.

[CropleyWasGod]

So let's say an individual called Mrs B gives STC 500k who then give it to HMFC. STC gets free advertising and Mrs B saves £100k?She will get Gift Aid on the donation. Hearts will pay Corporation Tax. And it will be disclosed in the accounts.

Not sure why she would do that. She would get more tax relief by using a VAT-registered company to pay HMFC direct.





Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[FilipinoHibs]

She will get Gift Aid on the donation. Hearts will pay Corporation Tax. And it will be disclosed in the accounts.

Not sure why she would do that. She would get more tax relief by using a VAT-registered company to pay HMFC direct.





Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

But Mrs B remains anonymous but we all know it really is😀

[CropleyWasGod]

But Mrs B remains anonymous but we all know it really is😀

We really don't.

[21.05.2016]

I know they're our rivals and that, but having a go at them for putting a charity on their shirt and pretending it's dodgy is a bit sad no?

Nut **** them. They think they're so upstanding and righteous by having a charity on their jerseys, it'll never disgiuse the fact that have a very seedy past and not so long ago were robbing charities.

Their seedy past where they robbed and cheated just about every person/business/charity/public service etc. they came into contact with will never go away and nor it should. The club with absolutely no shame whatsoever. Not a single ounce of humility or remorse shown either, just back giving it the big un, gushing over how wonderful they were to save the club and now how magnificent they are at having a charity sponsor.

[Keith_M]

I'm confused, how much of the money is actually going to Save The Children?




I thought it was all going to Hearts, but people are discussing Gift Aid.


:confused:

[danhibees1875]

I'm confused, how much of the money is actually going to Save The Children?




I thought it was all going to Hearts, but people are discussing Gift Aid.


:confused:

Is that people who think the hypothetical journey of the money is:

1) Donor to STC + gift aid
2) STC to hearts

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm confused, how much of the money is actually going to Save The Children?




I thought it was all going to Hearts, but people are discussing Gift Aid.


:confused:Nobody actually knows. [emoji849]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Billy Whizz]

I'm confused, how much of the money is actually going to Save The Children?




I thought it was all going to Hearts, but people are discussing Gift Aid.


:confused:
I asked this a bit further up, don’t know, and neither do Hearts fans. If I was a betting man, but I never bet, I’d think very little. What I think they get is exposure of their charity.
Clubs don’t have shirt sponsors, who pay them handsomely, and then give some of the sponsorship money away

[mca]

I'd rather we had a charitable organisation as our sponsor than a gambling company whose motives/objectives are pretty much to do the exact opposite.

Google or internet search - Save the Children scandals..... our neighbours can have them.. imo.. :wink:

[Mick O'Rourke]

Mysterious benefactor ploughs money into stand rebuild.
And mysterious benefactor did it again,when stand costs soared.
Stand still under construction,or at a standstill,as funds evaporate, so more cash may be required from mysterious benefactor.

Mysterious benefactor ploughs money in for shirt sponsor.

Baffles me why mysterious benefactor did not buy the club in the first place.

Mysterious benefactor has ploughed more cash into the club than The Budgie.

Is mysterious benefactor really The Budgie ? :dunno:

[CropleyWasGod]

Mysterious benefactor ploughs money into stand rebuild.
And mysterious benefactor did it again,when stand costs soared.
Stand still under construction,or at a standstill,as funds evaporate, so more cash may be required from mysterious benefactor.

Mysterious benefactor ploughs money in for shirt sponsor.

Baffles me why mysterious benefactor did not buy the club in the first place.

Mysterious benefactor has ploughed more cash into the club than The Budgie.

Is mysterious benefactor really The Budgie ? :dunno:Is it just the one person?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Diclonius]

You need to get a life, as do most folk on here. It’s a ******g football strip, with a sponsor, that’s all. The obsession with Hearts on here is another level sometimes. Just worry about them we play them at football.

Spot on.

The endless debate about who is more "moral" is tiring - we're two football clubs, not two political movements (as much as the OF like to think they're otherwise). The only thing that matters to me is beating them on the pitch, finishing above them in the league and them winning as little trophies as is humanly possible. Reminds me of the bad old days when we couldn't buy a win against them so looked for any non-footballing reason in which they were somehow worse than us (singing about Craig Thomson literally every time we were losing at Tynecastle springs to mind) so we could claim a "moral victory" instead.

The only thing that matters is beating them and beating them consistently.

[Billy Whizz]

Is it just the one person?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Similar thread on kickback, they love you Crops.

[CropleyWasGod]

Similar thread on kickback, they love you Crops.It's lust.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

I don't know who's done the donationing in this case, but one thing I'm pretty sure of. Budge. Tells. Lies.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't know who's done the donationing in this case, but one thing I'm pretty sure of. Budge. Tells. Lies.

Donatoring :greengrin

[BullsCloseHibs]

Every single thing Hearts have done and continues to do is dodgy. They are the most unscrupulous sporting club in The UK.

[SideBurns]

Every single thing Hearts have done and continues to do is dodgy. They are the most unscrupulous sporting club in The UK.

While The Rangers are in existence, I don't think Hearts are in any danger of claiming that title.

[Bishop Hibee]

Highest paid employee for Save the Children International was paid 327K from a charitable income of £786m. Big business.

It’s an improvement on Wonga though.