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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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..]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

[cocteautwin]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

^^ 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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

[MyJo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Could we have this bit in bold please?!

And maybe a short paragraph explaining VAT in relation to businesses

Ain't no such thang

[danhibees1875]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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?