I'm sure you're happy to help shoulder their tax-avoidance burden while being unable to actually afford to watch the team.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
now tell me how many foreigners - presumably with tax avoidance schemes in place - do the Arse employ
We pay our taxes. I and every other taxpayer (not you of course) pay a couple of £ a year for Glazer to take over Man Utd.
You do realise it's only the tax position that makes Glazer viable, Osborne has suggested making interest on loans no-deductible - they'd go down like a turd in a punch bowl if that was implemented.
You're so full of shite.
So what? That doesn't make your previous statement any less ridiculous! Are you on a wum because Sunderland made you look crap?
It's got nothing to do with football it's got everything to do with the UK taxpayer subsidising Glazer to take over Man Utd.
That's just bullshit though; the government gives no money to United.
Yes they do, you should pay tax on the money that you earn and you don't because you offset it against interest on a 'loan'.
And in your head that equates to "[you] and every other taxpayer pay[ing] a couple of £ a year for Glazer to take over Man Utd" does it?
Put a sock in it, man, you're talking shite.
Yeah, in anybody's world it means exchequer money (ie your and my money) being used for Glazer to own Man Utd.
Are the Glazer's doing anything illegal? If not, wouldn't they be daft not take advantage of any situation that is to their benefit?
It's not illegal but it should be made illegal. You're paying for them to own Man Utd as it stands.
Of course they're not. Tax avoidance is something that every large company will be taking advantage of in some form or other. 'Tax Evasion' is illegal, and if our owners were involved in anything like that then peterstorey might have something of a point, but 'Tax Avoidance' is just standard business practice which anyone running a company would be daft not to take advantage of.
Every big company will be engaged in tax avoidance, you can't just say that it should be illegal; the rules that govern the circumstances in which tax should and should not be payable are there for a reason, they're not suddenly void just because peterstorey off the internet says that they should be illegal. And no, the taxpayer isn't paying for the Glazers to own United; United receives no money whatsoever from the state or the taxpayer
So until it is illegal they would be daft not to make the most out of the rules.
Just like anyone else would be....including you.
I recently bought a house and took a house loan, even though I could have paid the money without taking a loan, so that I can write off some Income tax. Does that mean the state of NJ and it's residents are paying for my house too 
I'll sleep better today
I'll sleep better today
Well they do actually. They get a £50M tax rebate every year based on a loophole that was intended to cover plant and and machinery (or players in your case).
A rebate is a rebate, it's not a form of state funding or a gift from the goverment and it's certainly not paid for by the taxpayer; it's simply a refund on taxes paid when you were never legally obliged to do so. Tax avoidance; all businesses do it, including Arsenal FC; it's perfectly legal and above board and it does not equate to all the nation's businesses being run at the taxpayer's expense.
I seem to recall Arse being in some trouble with the UK Inland Revenue some years back paying some of their players via tax avoidance schemes which were a tad close to tax evasion
I seem to recall Arse being in some trouble with the UK Inland Revenue some years back paying some of their players via tax avoidance schemes which were a tad close to tax evasion
Shameless. So by peterstorey's logic then that means that i and every other taxpayer pays a couple of pound every year for Wenger to be a miserable fecker. At least the taxpayer gets a return in trophies for his investment with the Glazers, what the feck is the point in Arsenal FC?!
Peter didn't arsenal take out a £250m loan to fund the emirates?
Doesn't that mean the tax payer is funding the development of your new ground.
It's a perfectly viable way of funding a business venture.
Doesn't that mean the tax payer is funding the development of your new ground.
It's a perfectly viable way of funding a business venture.
That's exactly what the tax laws were framed to encourage - investment in the business not artificial acquisition strategies.
Can you explain what you mean by 'artificial acquisition strategies' please, peter?
You've posted crap all over this thread and you still don't know what we're talking about?
Is that a no then, you wont explain? As far as i'm aware the phrase 'artificial acquisition strategy' has just been made up by you, so it seems strange to me that you'd be using it as an example of something that UK tax laws shouldn't be allowing.
If we're going to make up concepts and then condemn them then i'd suggest that we discuss the practicality of indefinite degeneration agreements or short-term truncation dismemberments before we even begin to touch upon artificial acquisition strategies, wouldn't you agree?
What a fecking wanker.
Most takeovers involve some form of leveraging it's common business practise.
Unless you want the HMRC to rewrite the tax laws for the benefit of football fans.
Arsenal FC shareholders now have a fine piece of London real estate subsidised by the tax payer.
It doesn't matter whether the relief comes in the form of assets or a shareholding it amounts to the same thing.
People used to sometimes borrow a portion of their acquisition costs, the leveraged buy-out is a relatively recent phenomenon one that encourages asset stripping and short termism. It's entirely unhelpful to the economy at large not just football and could be stopped by changing the tax laws which were never intended to facilitate such take overs (as Osbourne suggested in fact until his masters twisted his arm).
Asset stripping and short-termism is not at all prevalent at United though; many of our player acquisitions are long-term investments and our overseas commercial ventures are with a view to creating a rich and reliable source of income which will outgrow matchday revenue in a few years time; the only major asset to be sold was Ronaldo, a sale we had little choice but to accept. On top of that our player wage-bill has increased by nearly 100% over the last five years, which means a LOT of tax is being paid thanks to the club's activities. More jobs have been created at the club since the arrival of the Glazers too, United employ more people now than ever before. It doesn't really sound like asset-stripping and short-termism to me, but nevermind, you just carry on spouting your ill-informed bullshit, i'm sure fredthered or someone equally as deluded will come along before long and lap it all up for you.
Its still puts billions of pounds worth investment into the economy.
Just the form has changed from traditional share capital to loan debt.
They basically transfer the risk from themselves into the banks/lenders.
If you look at United's tax position and take into account NIC and PAYE the government recover 51% of our biggest overhead (wages) and a further 12.8% employers NI on top.
The debt may provide a tax shield in the form of corp tax but the government certainly are not losing out when you consider the bigger picture.
I'm going to bow out now before I look like I'm in support of the Glazer's.
There is far better sticks to beat them with imo.
Impy's a Glazer lover! Kill him!
Ronaldo?
I recently bought a house and took a house loan, even though I could have paid the money without taking a loan, so that I can write off some Income tax. Does that mean the state of NJ and it's residents are paying for my house too
I'll sleep better today
Except you live in New Jersey
Simple- Arse's scheme keeps the money in the community via ground improvements and jobs etc - the glazers just ship the money to Florida-
So you are fecked twice, once because Arsenal improved their facilties and twice because the glazers just like to feck you!
As we know, the PIK is still technically nothing to do with the club so I guess that is why they dont need to report anything about it in a document like the Bond prospectus.
In any case, it wouldnt be too difficult to get round that type of reporting rules anyway - there is more than one way to skin a cat.
I do remember discussing this exact possibility with you in the past !
Selling Ronaldo wasn't asset stripping though, was it? It was the sale of one asset which, considering the huge fee involved and the player's non-commitment to the club, was the logical thing to do in the circumstances; it was not asset stripping. Asset stripping is the breaking down and selling of all of a company's assets because individually they're worth more than the company as a whole. Selling Ronaldo had absolutely nothing to do with asset stripping, which is not going on at United despite the protestations of peterstorey's ill-informed bullshit.
It was his 'dream' to play for RM. We could not have retained him by any means. No way that could be classified as asset stripping.
- Status