Friends of Fulham

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: clintclintdeuce on January 26, 2010, 11:27:43 AM

Title: A question about the business side of transfers
Post by: clintclintdeuce on January 26, 2010, 11:27:43 AM
Im wondering how the profits of transfers are taxed, at what percent, or even if they are.

Does anyone know how it works?
Title: Re: A question about the business side of transfers
Post by: WhiteJC on January 26, 2010, 12:23:52 PM
presumably any profit will be taxed at 'business rate'

however, as most(?) football clubs run at a loss they won't have to pay any tax
Title: Re: A question about the business side of transfers
Post by: FC Silver Fox on January 26, 2010, 12:53:28 PM
A lot depends on who you are.  If you are Harry Rednapp, everything is all above board. All money is accounted for and declared to the income tax people. This includes the club transfer fee, agent commissions, player bonus, sell-on fees and the zero/zilch/nowt pounds that is given to any manager or any other party for facilitating the deal. 
If this wasn't the case or ,if there was a misunderstanding, then the alleged offender would be arrested by the appropriate authorities.
There is no suggestion, explicit or implied, that anything illegal or improper was done by anybody mentioned in this post.
There, that should just about cover it.
Title: Re: A question about the business side of transfers
Post by: finnster01 on January 26, 2010, 12:57:36 PM
That made me chuckle Mr FC  ;D ;D
Title: Re: A question about the business side of transfers
Post by: TonyGilroy on January 26, 2010, 01:34:43 PM

Whatever the club receives is income to be set against outgoings when calculating end of year accounts from which tax may be paid.

Commissions legally paid will be the income of the recipient.

The bungs that, as French Connection says, are wholly mythical and never happen will obviously not attract tax as 40% of nowt is nowt.

It seems extraordinary, that being the case, that Hull should sue their former Chairman for receiving such payments.

If they have no evidence they'll end up paying enormous costs and the innocent, non bung receiving Chairman, will become rich on libel damages. Deservedly so.

Of course if there is such evidence (which I'm sure cannot be the case) I imagine his defence would be that this is standard practice in the industry and would have numerous examples to quote.

Which would be interesting.