|
|
Post by Somerset Blue on Nov 6, 2014 14:20:01 GMT
Lets say Hughes does join .... scores 10 goals in ten games and the Gas close right up on Barnet ....
Wonder how many high horses will be parading around the forum then ....
|
|
|
|
Post by warmleygas on Nov 6, 2014 14:21:05 GMT
so paying in shares would only really work when the company is big enough/successful enough to absorb the dilution? Hughes too old definitely I should have said, paying via dividend is common for private companies, but not for public companies (such as Hargreaves Lansdown). Paying by dividend is impractical for public companies, as the executive will only own a proportion of the issued shares, but the dividend has to be paid equally for each unit of common stock (hence the 'common term - the stock is held 'in common' with all other holders). As I said, there doesn't necessarily have to be a dilution, if the shares that form part of the plan are ones that have already been issued and purchased from the market / held in reserve by the company. And if there is dilution, its not that big a deal, as if the company had paid the executive in cash instead then the company would have less profit available to distribute to shareholders - effective 'diluting' the company's earnings. So would the company need to buy back shares from the market periodically for the scheme? As the number of shares must be finite? I remember one time where they had this "right issue" thing, i don't understand exactly what it was, but I know they basically issued more shares to raise money for an acquisition, the share price then dropped pretty drastically, but current shareholders had the option to buy cheap shares or something. I know this has nothing to do with the gas but i'm interested and you seem to know what you're on about. |
|
|
|
Post by thefoolonthehill1 on Nov 6, 2014 14:25:38 GMT
Lets say Hughes does join .... scores 10 goals in ten games and the Gas close right up on Barnet .... Wonder how many high horses will be parading around the forum then .... Hughes is going nowhere. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 14:28:22 GMT
Lets say Hughes does join .... scores 10 goals in ten games and the Gas close right up on Barnet .... Wonder how many high horses will be parading around the forum then .... [br This one wouldn't be. I'd have no business visiting a forum for a club I didn't support. |
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969 
|
Post by LJG on Nov 6, 2014 14:29:09 GMT
how do share schemes work then? Where I used to work there was a sharesave scheme whereby you save an amount monthly for 3 or 5 years and at the end you are given the option to buy shares. They ran this every year, but I can see what you mean, if you keep issuing more shares the value of the company would be diluted. Save as You Earn is an equity reward scheme for all employees of a company. You save a certain amount for 3,5 or 7 years and are then awarded a bonus on thos savings with which to purchase company shares. You can then either hold the shares and receive the dividends or you can sell them as soon as you purchase them and make a profit subject to no capital gains tax (since your base cost will be equal to your proceeds if you sell them on the same day). The ultimate aim is to a) keep employees - you only benefit if you don't leave within that 3, 5 or 7 years b) give employees an incentive to, work harder, be less wasteful etc to make the company more profitable and ultimately their shares more valuable or the dividends therefrom higher because distributable profits will be greater. A bit like we should have win bonuses in players' contracts - that extra bit of cash might give them a little drive to win the game. Disley had a win bonus clause. |
|
|
|
Post by bs20gas on Nov 6, 2014 14:34:10 GMT
Well if Lee Hughes comes here it looks like a third of our support wont be attending that cant be a good thing, were definitely interested in him and have been making enquiries about getting him in on loan, personally i dont care about his past but obviously feel sorry for the people in the car he crashed into but if he were to score goals for us he would be worth having but i think hes past it myself,The new midfielder from Fulham sounds promising and i hope he can make a big impact U.T.G.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Nov 6, 2014 14:35:14 GMT
Lets say Hughes does join .... scores 10 goals in ten games and the Gas close right up on Barnet .... Wonder how many high horses will be parading around the forum then .... Apparently already scored 6 in 13 not a bad return by our standards ! |
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Nov 6, 2014 14:38:05 GMT
so paying in shares would only really work when the company is big enough/successful enough to absorb the dilution? Hughes too old definitely I should have said, paying via dividend is common for private companies, but not for public companies (such as Hargreaves Lansdown). Paying by dividend is impractical for public companies, as the executive will only own a proportion of the issued shares, but the dividend has to be paid equally for each unit of common stock (hence the 'common term - the stock is held 'in common' with all other holders). As I said, there doesn't necessarily have to be a dilution, if the shares that form part of the plan are ones that have already been issued and purchased from the market / held in reserve by the company. And if there is dilution, its not that big a deal, as if the company had paid the executive in cash instead then the company would have less profit available to distribute to shareholders - effective 'diluting' the company's earnings. You're talking about share incentive schemes which are slightly different - see above - they get tax breaks; why do you think share awards from unapproved schemes are charged as employment income on issue? Because it's a way of diverting income streams. Public companies can easily still have alphabet shares for key employees in order to remunerate them via dividends - their rights don't impact the ords because they don't vote or have a right to capital on a winding up. As far as Lansdown is concerned - I didn't offer a reason for perhaps why he lives in the channel islands - I have no doubt that it's because of the preferrential tax treatment but he is acting within the rules. Like I said plenty of people earn money in the UK and are not taxed on it because of their residence status - people who've never even been to the UK in fact. I don't see how Lansdown is any more of a tax dodger than them. Speaking of foreign nationals - do we have any sort of system for scouting lower leagues in Europe? I bet there are some incredible part time French or Portugese players who could be tempted. |
|
|
|
Post by thefoolonthehill1 on Nov 6, 2014 14:39:56 GMT
Lets say Hughes does join .... scores 10 goals in ten games and the Gas close right up on Barnet .... Wonder how many high horses will be parading around the forum then .... Apparently already scored 6 in 13 not a bad return by our standards ! Hughes is going nowhere. |
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Nov 6, 2014 14:47:45 GMT
I should have said, paying via dividend is common for private companies, but not for public companies (such as Hargreaves Lansdown). Paying by dividend is impractical for public companies, as the executive will only own a proportion of the issued shares, but the dividend has to be paid equally for each unit of common stock (hence the 'common term - the stock is held 'in common' with all other holders). As I said, there doesn't necessarily have to be a dilution, if the shares that form part of the plan are ones that have already been issued and purchased from the market / held in reserve by the company. And if there is dilution, its not that big a deal, as if the company had paid the executive in cash instead then the company would have less profit available to distribute to shareholders - effective 'diluting' the company's earnings. So would the company need to buy back shares from the market periodically for the scheme? As the number of shares must be finite? I remember one time where they had this "right issue" thing, i don't understand exactly what it was, but I know they basically issued more shares to raise money for an acquisition, the share price then dropped pretty drastically, but current shareholders had the option to buy cheap shares or something. I know this has nothing to do with the gas but i'm interested and you seem to know what you're on about. You are correct - share plans can wither work by new shares being issued and sold to the plan, or by the plan purchasing existing shares. If a company is known to regularly issue shares for the purposes of a share plan (for public companies, the issue of shares has to be approved at a general meeting and disclosed in a standard way), then that will be already reflected in the share price. A certain amount of share dilution is expected anyway - up to 5% or 10% annually, depending. With regards to larger scale share issues, yes often there is usually an option to buy more shares at the reduced price to get the holding back to the same level. |
|
Royal Blue
Michael Smith
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 296
|
Post by Royal Blue on Nov 6, 2014 15:06:31 GMT
Would be seriously impressed and pleased if we managed to get Matt Tubbs in at some point this season. The guy has a knack of scoring goals in most of the divisions he has played in and at this level I'm convinced he'd net a hatful again. I've always wondered if he fancied joining us as it isn't the first time we've been linked with signing him so maybe it's a go-er in January.
In regard to Hughes, I sincerely hope we don't sign him simply to avoid the disputes we're seeing on this thread and to ensure Gasheads don't feel they can't support their club if he is wearing the quarters. In footballing terms I don't want him here because I don't see what he would add to the team and him signing anyway wouldn't sit well with me either. I hope the club don't get him in.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Nov 6, 2014 15:07:33 GMT
I should have said, paying via dividend is common for private companies, but not for public companies (such as Hargreaves Lansdown). Paying by dividend is impractical for public companies, as the executive will only own a proportion of the issued shares, but the dividend has to be paid equally for each unit of common stock (hence the 'common term - the stock is held 'in common' with all other holders). As I said, there doesn't necessarily have to be a dilution, if the shares that form part of the plan are ones that have already been issued and purchased from the market / held in reserve by the company. And if there is dilution, its not that big a deal, as if the company had paid the executive in cash instead then the company would have less profit available to distribute to shareholders - effective 'diluting' the company's earnings. You're talking about share incentive schemes which are slightly different - see above - they get tax breaks; why do you think share awards from unapproved schemes are charged as employment income on issue? Because it's a way of diverting income streams. Public companies can easily still have alphabet shares for key employees in order to remunerate them via dividends - their rights don't impact the ords because they don't vote or have a right to capital on a winding up. As far as Lansdown is concerned - I didn't offer a reason for perhaps why he lives in the channel islands - I have no doubt that it's because of the preferrential tax treatment but he is acting within the rules. Like I said plenty of people earn money in the UK and are not taxed on it because of their residence status - people who've never even been to the UK in fact. I don't see how Lansdown is any more of a tax dodger than them. Speaking of foreign nationals - do we have any sort of system for scouting lower leagues in Europe? I bet there are some incredible part time French or Portugese players who could be tempted. Not really any different - its all remuneration, deferred or not. You said that companies don't pay executives in shares, I'm saying they do via share incentive schemes. Alphabet shares can of course be created, but, it doesn't take away the fact that public companies often pay their executives with shares via share plans. |
|
|
|
Post by dickgherkin on Nov 6, 2014 15:12:47 GMT
I'm not Steve Landsdown I can't just avoid paying tax. Get off your hobby horse.
Steve Lansdown pays all the taxes he has to pay where he lives, his main saving is on Inheritance tax which is not applicable in the Channel Islands.
I lived there for five years, do you consider me a tax avoider? I paid 20p in the £ instead of 25p so must have cost the UK an absolute fortune. 
Cue accusations I am a sh*thead. I have supported the Gas for 55+ years
Doesn't Jersey have a flat rate tax of 27% on high earnings, rather than 40%? So he's avoiding a lot more than a few pints of beer worth.... Also no Capital Gains Tax? So when he got a £58 million windfall from Hargreaves Lansdown stock sale he avoided paying an amount which would have built several primary schools in B***** Hill & Kingswood? I may be wrong but thats how i understand it. |
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Nov 6, 2014 15:20:11 GMT
I should have said, paying via dividend is common for private companies, but not for public companies (such as Hargreaves Lansdown). Paying by dividend is impractical for public companies, as the executive will only own a proportion of the issued shares, but the dividend has to be paid equally for each unit of common stock (hence the 'common term - the stock is held 'in common' with all other holders). As I said, there doesn't necessarily have to be a dilution, if the shares that form part of the plan are ones that have already been issued and purchased from the market / held in reserve by the company. And if there is dilution, its not that big a deal, as if the company had paid the executive in cash instead then the company would have less profit available to distribute to shareholders - effective 'diluting' the company's earnings. You're talking about share incentive schemes which are slightly different - see above - they get tax breaks; why do you think share awards from unapproved schemes are charged as employment income on issue? Because it's a way of diverting income streams. Public companies can easily still have alphabet shares for key employees in order to remunerate them via dividends - their rights don't impact the ords because they don't vote or have a right to capital on a winding up. As far as Lansdown is concerned - I didn't offer a reason for perhaps why he lives in the channel islands - I have no doubt that it's because of the preferrential tax treatment but he is acting within the rules. Like I said plenty of people earn money in the UK and are not taxed on it because of their residence status - people who've never even been to the UK in fact. I don't see how Lansdown is any more of a tax dodger than them. Speaking of foreign nationals - do we have any sort of system for scouting lower leagues in Europe? I bet there are some incredible part time French or Portugese players who could be tempted. Forgot to reply about tax avoidance. Yes, he is acting within the rules, but legally right doesn't necessarily mean morally right. Lansdown has a moral duty not to avoid paying UK tax, because his wealth, indeed his whole life, has been facillitated by UK tax payer's money, e.g infrastructure paid for by taxation. |
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Nov 6, 2014 15:29:50 GMT
You're talking about share incentive schemes which are slightly different - see above - they get tax breaks; why do you think share awards from unapproved schemes are charged as employment income on issue? Because it's a way of diverting income streams. Public companies can easily still have alphabet shares for key employees in order to remunerate them via dividends - their rights don't impact the ords because they don't vote or have a right to capital on a winding up. As far as Lansdown is concerned - I didn't offer a reason for perhaps why he lives in the channel islands - I have no doubt that it's because of the preferrential tax treatment but he is acting within the rules. Like I said plenty of people earn money in the UK and are not taxed on it because of their residence status - people who've never even been to the UK in fact. I don't see how Lansdown is any more of a tax dodger than them. Speaking of foreign nationals - do we have any sort of system for scouting lower leagues in Europe? I bet there are some incredible part time French or Portugese players who could be tempted. Not really any different - its all remuneration, deferred or not. You said that companies don't pay executives in shares, I'm saying they do via share incentive schemes. Alphabet shares can of course be created, but, it doesn't take away the fact that public companies often pay their executives with shares via share plans. It is quite different - we were talking about share remuneration as a method for tax avoidance. See Warmley's post. I didn't say that share rewards don't exist but as I've said above their primary purpose is to keep the employee and to make them work harder to increase the NAV of the employer company - to do that in a listed company under an approved method you have to use a CSOP scheme (the employee is tied in for 3 - 10 years). It's not a method of tax avoidance strictly (Warmley's initial post asked why CEOs take salary in shares - it's not salary, salary is annual; by their very nature a share scheme has limits which prevents it necessarily from being used annually - although it can be within parameters). If it's an unapproved scheme, you aren't getting any tax breaks on it the award is charged as employment income as normal; if the company is listed or there's a buy back in place it's collected under PAYE and charged to NIC - the main reason is to allow for dividend remuneration, as I said before, or a one time turnover of profit. I didn't say public companies don't use share plans, you said public companies don't remunerate via dividends because the public can buy ords and thus dividends can't be directed just to directors - I was simply pointing out that that's not the case. I'd like to know the detail of incentive related payments in our players' contracts. Win bonuses, goal bonuses, clean sheet bonuses etc. Is there such a thing as a clean sheet bonus? Must be surely. |
|
|
|
Post by warmleygas on Nov 6, 2014 15:30:59 GMT
It's mad that all these loopholes exist, I guess a lot of people don't care about the injustice of it, even now when people are struggling to make ends meet. I guess it would have to get a lot worse for people to worry about it.
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Nov 6, 2014 15:32:55 GMT
You're talking about share incentive schemes which are slightly different - see above - they get tax breaks; why do you think share awards from unapproved schemes are charged as employment income on issue? Because it's a way of diverting income streams. Public companies can easily still have alphabet shares for key employees in order to remunerate them via dividends - their rights don't impact the ords because they don't vote or have a right to capital on a winding up. As far as Lansdown is concerned - I didn't offer a reason for perhaps why he lives in the channel islands - I have no doubt that it's because of the preferrential tax treatment but he is acting within the rules. Like I said plenty of people earn money in the UK and are not taxed on it because of their residence status - people who've never even been to the UK in fact. I don't see how Lansdown is any more of a tax dodger than them. Speaking of foreign nationals - do we have any sort of system for scouting lower leagues in Europe? I bet there are some incredible part time French or Portugese players who could be tempted. Forgot to reply about tax avoidance. Yes, he is acting within the rules, but legally right doesn't necessarily mean morally right. Lansdown has a moral duty not to avoid paying UK tax, because his wealth, indeed his whole life, has been facillitated by UK tax payer's money, e.g infrastructure paid for by taxation. Which he will have paid tax for while he was resident here. That's how it works isn't it? Use it - pay for it. Move abroad and don't use it - don't pay for it. His resident business interests will pay be charged their contribution towards the infrastructure they utilise via Corporation Tax. That's why we have the residency rules - so that people who aren't resident who are not using the infrastructure aren't taxed for it's use surely? |
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Nov 6, 2014 15:39:30 GMT
Not really any different - its all remuneration, deferred or not. You said that companies don't pay executives in shares, I'm saying they do via share incentive schemes. Alphabet shares can of course be created, but, it doesn't take away the fact that public companies often pay their executives with shares via share plans. It is quite different - we were talking about share remuneration as a method for tax avoidance. See Warmley's post. I didn't say that share rewards don't exist but as I've said above their primary purpose is to keep the employee and to make them work harder to increase the NAV of the employer company - to do that in a listed company under an approved method you have to use a CSOP scheme (the employee is tied in for 3 - 10 years). It's not a method of tax avoidance strictly (Warmley's initial post asked why CEOs take salary in shares - it's not salary, salary is annual; by their very nature a share scheme has limits which prevents it necessarily from being used annually - although it can be within parameters). If it's an unapproved scheme, you aren't getting any tax breaks on it the award is charged as employment income as normal; if the company is listed or there's a buy back in place it's collected under PAYE and charged to NIC - the main reason is to allow for dividend remuneration, as I said before, or a one time turnover of profit. I didn't say public companies don't use share plans, you said public companies don't remunerate via dividends because the public can buy ords and thus dividends can't be directed just to directors - I was simply pointing out that that's not the case. I'd like to know the detail of incentive related payments in our players' contracts. Win bonuses, goal bonuses, clean sheet bonuses etc. Is there such a thing as a clean sheet bonus? Must be surely. Ok, we can agree on this. |
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Nov 6, 2014 15:46:24 GMT
Forgot to reply about tax avoidance. Yes, he is acting within the rules, but legally right doesn't necessarily mean morally right. Lansdown has a moral duty not to avoid paying UK tax, because his wealth, indeed his whole life, has been facillitated by UK tax payer's money, e.g infrastructure paid for by taxation. Which he will have paid tax for while he was resident here. That's how it works isn't it? Use it - pay for it. Move abroad and don't use it - don't pay for it. His resident business interests will pay be charged their contribution towards the infrastructure they utilise via Corporation Tax. That's why we have the residency rules - so that people who aren't resident who are not using the infrastructure aren't taxed for it's use surely? The corporation tax argument is a straw man, so lets get that out of the way. Just because he effectively pays some tax, doesn't mean he shouldn't pay all of the tax that is his due. Regarding the residency rules - can you not see that there's a clear moral difference between becoming non-resident because you genuinely want to live in another country, and becoming non-resident purely to pay less tax? Taxation is levied (or should be levied) in proportion to a person's ability to pay, that's a fundamental moral principle. Lansdown has broken that link. |
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Nov 6, 2014 16:00:13 GMT
Which he will have paid tax for while he was resident here. That's how it works isn't it? Use it - pay for it. Move abroad and don't use it - don't pay for it. His resident business interests will pay be charged their contribution towards the infrastructure they utilise via Corporation Tax. That's why we have the residency rules - so that people who aren't resident who are not using the infrastructure aren't taxed for it's use surely? The corporation tax argument is a straw man, so lets get that out of the way. Just because he effectively pays some tax, doesn't mean he shouldn't pay all of the tax that is his due. Regarding the residency rules - can you not see that there's a clear moral difference between becoming non-resident because you genuinely want to live in another country, and becoming non-resident purely to pay less tax? Taxation is levied (or should be levied) in proportion to a person's ability to pay, that's a fundamental moral principle. Lansdown has broken that link. I can't agree I'm afraid. I can't see that the Corporation Tax point is a straw man - the opposite in fact. I think ignoring it to make a subjective point on morality is the straw man. The tax is met as it objectively falls due. There has to be a causal link between the charge and the duty to pay surely? Why does the motive toward becoming non-resident have to be factoral? Otherwise why not make the statutory test a moral one? Or at least a subjective one - in fact we do - FA 2013 has a general anti-avoidance rule which says it can discount contrived steps used to avoid tax if they can not reasonably regarded as reasonable steps. If he's not even caught by that how much further can you go? Bloody hell ... sorry ... last week my Mrs said "Do you love those Yellow books more than you love me"? I don't. |
|
