kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Apr 23, 2020 10:28:44 GMT
Will Dwayne sports benefit from this in any way ? if so I don't think that its right that they should as they are registered in Jersey to benefit tax wise,why should the British taxpayer give them anything? I thought the exact same thing but about steve Lansdown. I hadn’t heard about us doing this. I did see something about those who trade offshore will not be allowed to do it though
|
|
warehamgas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,430
|
Post by warehamgas on Apr 23, 2020 12:57:15 GMT
Will Dwayne sports benefit from this in any way ? if so I don't think that its right that they should as they are registered in Jersey to benefit tax wise,why should the British taxpayer give them anything? I get that trymer and I don’t disagree but I suspect the dangers of this CV crisis is striking home to owners and clubs. It’s not just about doing the ‘right’ things it’s more about doing the things that will ensure we still have a football club at the end of it. That now is the main objective I would have thought and if furloughing for a poor League 1 club helps secure that objective then the ends will justify the means. I don’t think that any government should be supporting any firm who are registered elsewhere as a tax avoidance scheme. Perhaps this will be one of the things that will be looked at post-CV. It should be. UTG!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2020 15:30:23 GMT
Will Dwayne sports benefit from this in any way ? if so I don't think that its right that they should as they are registered in Jersey to benefit tax wise,why should the British taxpayer give them anything? I get that trymer and I don’t disagree but I suspect the dangers of this CV crisis is striking home to owners and clubs. It’s not just about doing the ‘right’ things it’s more about doing the things that will ensure we still have a football club at the end of it. That now is the main objective I would have thought and if furloughing for a poor League 1 club helps secure that objective then the ends will justify the means. I don’t think that any government should be supporting any firm who are registered elsewhere as a tax avoidance scheme. Perhaps this will be one of the things that will be looked at post-CV. It should be. UTG! Don't and can't agree at all. Bristol Rovers may have, at a push, 50,000 people who care enough to check results. Why should the exchequer, funded by everybody, subsidise this business? I have zero interest in subsidising Macclesfield or Barnet and shouldn't think their supporters, especially in such uncertain times, are super keen on facing higher future taxes so that our players can be paid 80% of their inflated wages. Double that and then add some when our owners have everything under the umbrella of an offshore company. If I have to face higher taxes in future then I have no issue whatsoever if it helps normal working people to get by, but to assist Dwane Sports in controlling their losses, thanks but no thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2020 15:57:34 GMT
I get that trymer and I don’t disagree but I suspect the dangers of this CV crisis is striking home to owners and clubs. It’s not just about doing the ‘right’ things it’s more about doing the things that will ensure we still have a football club at the end of it. That now is the main objective I would have thought and if furloughing for a poor League 1 club helps secure that objective then the ends will justify the means. I don’t think that any government should be supporting any firm who are registered elsewhere as a tax avoidance scheme. Perhaps this will be one of the things that will be looked at post-CV. It should be. UTG! Don't and can't agree at all. Bristol Rovers may have, at a push, 50,000 people who care enough to check results. Why should the exchequer, funded by everybody, subsidise this business? I have zero interest in subsidising Macclesfield or Barnet and shouldn't think their supporters, especially in such uncertain times, are super keen on facing higher future taxes so that our players can be paid 80% of their inflated wages. Double that and then add some when our owners have everything under the umbrella of an offshore company. If I have to face higher taxes in future then I have no issue whatsoever if it helps normal working people to get by, but to assist Dwane Sports in controlling their losses, thanks but no thanks. Given that the revenues from the companies quoted pay national insurance for all employees, pay vat, pay business rates, create employment. Yes let's single them out and discourage inward investment into the UK. Jesus Christ, Luddites or Us.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2020 16:01:53 GMT
Don't and can't agree at all. Bristol Rovers may have, at a push, 50,000 people who care enough to check results. Why should the exchequer, funded by everybody, subsidise this business? I have zero interest in subsidising Macclesfield or Barnet and shouldn't think their supporters, especially in such uncertain times, are super keen on facing higher future taxes so that our players can be paid 80% of their inflated wages. Double that and then add some when our owners have everything under the umbrella of an offshore company. If I have to face higher taxes in future then I have no issue whatsoever if it helps normal working people to get by, but to assist Dwane Sports in controlling their losses, thanks but no thanks. Given that the revenues from the companies quoted pay national insurance for all employees, pay vat, pay business rates, create employment. Yes let's single them out and discourage inward investment into the UK. Jesus Christ, Luddites or Us. Not even worth discussing it with you, when you accept that Laffer is real and affects investment we can have a grown up conversation, but as long as you've just made up your mind about something and won't budge from that position, regardless, there's no point in trying to explain business, or for that matter the legal process of shutting companies, with you. Yours are the crazed, demented economics that think the EC closed shop, with restrictions and punitive tariffs imposed on doing business with the majority of the world make sense, and you have the bare faced nerve to criticise anybody! Yeah, alright, whatever, I'm sure you're right. You've repeatedly asked for just 1 piece of EU legislation that's harmful to UK business, OK, I'll give it to you by PM and demonstrate why it's designed to support the protectionist racket that is the EU, but let's do it by PM, because it's a bit technical and everybody else will be bored rigid by the detail, but come on, you asked for it, so let's do it. Then when it's over, you can come back on here and just pop up a quick post to the effect that you've had it demonstrated that the EU put a policy in place to deliberately obstruct trade from outside of their bloc with no benefit to EU consumers or business. Let's go.
|
|
warehamgas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,430
|
Post by warehamgas on Apr 23, 2020 16:30:42 GMT
I get that trymer and I don’t disagree but I suspect the dangers of this CV crisis is striking home to owners and clubs. It’s not just about doing the ‘right’ things it’s more about doing the things that will ensure we still have a football club at the end of it. That now is the main objective I would have thought and if furloughing for a poor League 1 club helps secure that objective then the ends will justify the means. I don’t think that any government should be supporting any firm who are registered elsewhere as a tax avoidance scheme. Perhaps this will be one of the things that will be looked at post-CV. It should be. UTG! Don't and can't agree at all. Bristol Rovers may have, at a push, 50,000 people who care enough to check results. Why should the exchequer, funded by everybody, subsidise this business? I have zero interest in subsidising Macclesfield or Barnet and shouldn't think their supporters, especially in such uncertain times, are super keen on facing higher future taxes so that our players can be paid 80% of their inflated wages. Double that and then add some when our owners have everything under the umbrella of an offshore company. If I have to face higher taxes in future then I have no issue whatsoever if it helps normal working people to get by, but to assist Dwane Sports in controlling their losses, thanks but no thanks. Well, whilst I agree to an extent, my point was more about how clubs’ attitudes have changed over the past two or three weeks. At that time istr Wael saying, as if it were a badge of honour, he would support the club through not putting staff on furlough which was great. Now, realism has kicked in and instead of saying such things I think owners and esp Wael, as far as we are concerned (I’m not too worried about other clubs), has realised that this may last a long time and he needs to get real and putting staff on furlough is a manifestation of this. Put simply it’s about survival now. But BRFC has employees and do all the legal stuff over taxes and insurances so I suppose they are able to take advantage of this though I’m pretty sure the Government, when they did this, didn’t intend it to be something used by football clubs. Perhaps they should have been more specific or focus the scheme more when they started it. But I guess employees are employees. UTG!
|
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 1,444
|
Post by trymer on Apr 23, 2020 16:43:04 GMT
Don't and can't agree at all. Bristol Rovers may have, at a push, 50,000 people who care enough to check results. Why should the exchequer, funded by everybody, subsidise this business? I have zero interest in subsidising Macclesfield or Barnet and shouldn't think their supporters, especially in such uncertain times, are super keen on facing higher future taxes so that our players can be paid 80% of their inflated wages. Double that and then add some when our owners have everything under the umbrella of an offshore company. If I have to face higher taxes in future then I have no issue whatsoever if it helps normal working people to get by, but to assist Dwane Sports in controlling their losses, thanks but no thanks. Well, whilst I agree to an extent, my point was more about how clubs’ attitudes have changed over the past two or three weeks. At that time istr Wael saying, as if it were a badge of honour, he would support the club through not putting staff on furlough which was great. Now, realism has kicked in and instead of saying such things I think owners and esp Wael, as far as we are concerned (I’m not too worried about other clubs), has realised that this may last a long time and he needs to get real and putting staff on furlough is a manifestation of this. Put simply it’s about survival now. But BRFC has employees and do all the legal stuff over taxes and insurances so I suppose they are able to take advantage of this though I’m pretty sure the Government, when they did this, didn’t intend it to be something used by football clubs. Perhaps they should have been more specific or focus the scheme more when they started it. UTG! I think that the government had to act very quickly to bring something in to help people,maybe they left loopholes that can me used (mis-used) by the sort of people who have their businesses registered in Jersey for tax reasons. I was thinking about the staff in Aldi when I was in there,they have had to work (I expect its quite stressful too) when they get there wages they will have stoppages for tax, why should any of their tax payments benefit Dwayne sports (or others) in any way ? I know that the staff at Rovers deserve money the same as anyone else but I just hope that there isnt any way that others can profit from it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2020 16:44:29 GMT
Don't and can't agree at all. Bristol Rovers may have, at a push, 50,000 people who care enough to check results. Why should the exchequer, funded by everybody, subsidise this business? I have zero interest in subsidising Macclesfield or Barnet and shouldn't think their supporters, especially in such uncertain times, are super keen on facing higher future taxes so that our players can be paid 80% of their inflated wages. Double that and then add some when our owners have everything under the umbrella of an offshore company. If I have to face higher taxes in future then I have no issue whatsoever if it helps normal working people to get by, but to assist Dwane Sports in controlling their losses, thanks but no thanks. Well, whilst I agree to an extent, my point was more about how clubs’ attitudes have changed over the past two or three weeks. At that time istr Wael saying, as if it were a badge of honour, he would support the club through not putting staff on furlough which was great. Now, realism has kicked in and instead of saying such things I think owners and esp Wael, as far as we are concerned (I’m not too worried about other clubs), has realised that this may last a long time and he needs to get real and putting staff on furlough is a manifestation of this. Put simply it’s about survival now. But BRFC has employees and do all the legal stuff over taxes and insurances so I suppose they are able to take advantage of this though I’m pretty sure the Government, when they did this, didn’t intend it to be something used by football clubs. Perhaps they should have been more specific or focus the scheme more when they started it. But I guess employees are employees. UTG! Probably fair to say, there wasn't a huge amount of time to consider the scheme prior to roll out, and if anything like this happens again in the future it will be V2.0 and will look a fair bit different.
|
|