Torquay United Fans Forum

The problem in professional football these days is not the salary cap, it's the salary GAP.

Whoever thought that when turncoat "New Labour" introduced the minimum wage to bring the less well off up to a living wage, that greedy b'stards would soon be in power to drive down middle income workers to the aforementioned minimum ?

Real conservatives (note the small c) like me and Alf Garnett, have nothing in common with greedy b'stards. :no:

Glostergull wrote:There is one problem which these teams will have if their directors put money in and file it as income. TAX. If ther inject capital to either build the team up or keep it going as our directors have done, The capital is added to the balance sheet as a directors loan and can be drawn down at any time so that that directors can have thier capital back. then they can have interest added if they need. if it's injected as sponsorship then it truly is income and they cannot add interest or have it back and in fact the tax man will if it's over their allowable limits tax them on it.
They won't win either way.

Not really 'up' on UK tax law, but could the director not use it as a tax write-off on their end. So I set up "Chris' Gags, Inc" (selling a variety of items for the growing Gimp market. Don't worry, you're all on my mailing list ), sponsor the club to the tune of half a million quid, and deduct that 500k from my balance sheet; thus ensuring I don't pay tax on that money that I guess I don't really have any more.

I mean, you'd probably still lose a bit on the transaction (the corp tax associated on the TUFC side being more than the saving on Chris' Gags side) but it would reduce your tax liability at least.

Oooh, unless we make Torquay United a charity and gift-aid it

yellowforever wrote:If their 'sugar daddy' inputs money into the club directly, and it get's filed as income then they're playing by the rules.

The bubble will burst eventually.

There is one problem which these teams will have if their directors put money in and file it as income. TAX. If ther inject capital to either build the team up or keep it going as our directors have done, The capital is added to the balance sheet as a directors loan and can be drawn down at any time so that that directors can have thier capital back. then they can have interest added if they need. if it's injected as sponsorship then it truly is income and they cannot add interest or have it back and in fact the tax man will if it's over their allowable limits tax them on it.
They won't win either way.

This is more like it:

scottbrehaut wrote:Personally I think the French accent is pretty hot :~D

Yes Scott, we all know how much you fantasise over David Ginola

Personally I think the French accent is pretty hot :~D

Southampton Gull wrote:I know that one mate, I do a lot of work via remote access and most of the "foreign" clientele adore my English accent, well my "telephone voice" anyway. Not sure they'd find it so endearing if they heard me using my "colourful" language

Presumably this isn't video conferencing?

I work with some Russian women and I think that accent is very sexy. Don't hear the American any more.

But it's really interesting how much women here (well, blokes too, but I tend not to care quite so much!) love the accent. It'd done well for me, getting me free coffee, good service in restaurants and on a couple of memorable occasions, phone numbers.

I know that one mate, I do a lot of work via remote access and most of the "foreign" clientele adore my English accent, well my "telephone voice" anyway. Not sure they'd find it so endearing if they heard me using my "colourful" language

Southampton Gull wrote:You still have your English accent though, thank God

Hell, yes. The ladies love it. (they really do.) The day my accent goes is the day I jump off the Empire State Building.

You still have your English accent though, thank God

Southampton Gull wrote:Because you're a bleddy Yank

While not, technically, a Yank - I'll concede the point.

happytorq wrote: Honestly, why aren't I in charge at the FA?

Because you're a bleddy Yank

Yeah, like that Happy. Did mine in 30 seconds while on hold with the CPS in Birmingham.

Shred, the money in football is self perpetuating, the Alan Sugar documentary to which I so often refer really bought that home. All they do is take the present amount of money in football and divide it by 100. so, where a club are payed £100,000 for appearing on TV, they now are payed £1000 for appearing on TV. Thus, the money they have to spend is much reduced.If income is 100 times lower, outgoings must be 100 times lower in order for profit to remain constant. Thus, if income is made up of gate receipts, tv money, sponsorship, transfers, merchandise and commercial endeavours and today, it comes to £1,000,000,000 (one billion). This club spends the regulation 55% of income on wages, so can pay £550,000,000 (five hundred and fifty million). Divide this whole lot by 100 and suddenly, the numbers are still large, but not stupid large. Income of 10,000,000 and wages of £5,500,000 (Tevez at Man City earns double this, in one year, on his own).

I know it's simplistic and I know there are many factors for which I haven't accounted, but on the face of it, it's not an unworkable solution, provided it's applied to the top leagues world wide.

As for those in the lower divisions, Happy's American idea of a squad pay limit, so you have no more than 22 pros and the squad earnings in L2 are £660,000/year (£30,000/year each). Thus, if CTFC want to pay Torres or whoever £5000/week, they have to pay the rest of the squad £50/week to make up. Regulate this to prevent "appearance bonuses" by imposing a tax levy that says anything over £30,000/year for L2 footballers is taxed at 100%.

Essentially, do whatever is required to keep football under control.

As for your point about tip top fitness, well, it's hardly a chore to hit the gym, there are plenty of members of the armed forces who are equally as fit as any footballer, the same goes for firefighters, mountain rescue and even those who just like to keep fit. Equally, while I'm sure they do entertain millions, I still maintain that a salary of £125,000 is, really, asmuch money as any man could possibly need.
No, it won't make you sufficiently wealthy to spunk, say, £25,000,000 on a hideous Cheshire Mansion, but it's sure as hell a comfortable living. Please don't think me rude, but take a look at your last pay slip from your employer. I bet it doesn't have a pound sign then six figures after it and I'm sure you manage to struggle along.

Matt.

the_shredder wrote:
Although i usually agree with a lot you say, unfortunately the figures you state would mean no-one would want to live/play for a London team for a start where the cost of living demands higher wages.

I know you weren't serious about some of ur post but realistically, let's pretend Chelsea only had to pay £2,500 or similar "normal" wage to 30 odd players - and then they sign theyr £10million/year sponsorship deals - where should the rest of the money go?

And while the money footballers get paid is ludicrous - if i worked hard to keep my body in top fitness, and regularly played football to entertain potentially millions of people around the world, i'd want a hell of a lot more than £2,500 especially if the board are sitting their rubbing their hands together from TV deals and other advertising revenue. That wouldn't be fair at all. I think footballers should get a decent percentage of the money the club receive - but in a perfect world they wouldn't receive as much money in the top flight. But yes, you can't enforce a wage cap here unless it was global, else all the good players would leave to other countries.

I actually wouldn't have used the figures that Matt suggested, and I'd do it in a different - rather than placing a limit on what an individual player could earn, simply say to the clubs - "ok you lot, you have X amount to spend a year". That way, if Manchester City felt the need to pay some dolt £250,000 a week, that'd be fine, but they'd then have to pay a few of their squad players £2000 a week. (just an example). That way, those very players who are worth the bigger bucks get it, and there's more flexibility to bring in a star name. I'd probably also institute some sort of penalty system whereby a team *could* go over that cap, but only if they are made to pay a substantial fine (we'd call this an "extravagance" tax to make it sound better) that would then be put into funding grass-roots community football programs.

Honestly, why aren't I in charge at the FA?

ferrarilover wrote:Quite right Happy. It's a simple process, there is a fixed salary for footballers based upon division. L2 footballers earn £400/week. L1 £600. Championship £1500 and Premier League £2500. There is no good reason why a PL footballer needs more than £125,000/year, that's more than enough money for anyone charged with playing a childs' game for a living.

I know this idea needs ironing out, but in theory, it's fine. All salaries must go through a committee first. This committee is me and my mum. Diamondgirl and I will make the decisions about buying pens for £1,000,000 and paying £400 salaries, but £1,000,000 "appearance bonuses". Clubs who attempt to circumvent our rules or pull the wool over our eyes will be relegated a division/infringement.

Problem solved.

Matt.

Although i usually agree with a lot you say, unfortunately the figures you state would mean no-one would want to live/play for a London team for a start where the cost of living demands higher wages.

I know you weren't serious about some of ur post but realistically, let's pretend Chelsea only had to pay £2,500 or similar "normal" wage to 30 odd players - and then they sign theyr £10million/year sponsorship deals - where should the rest of the money go?

And while the money footballers get paid is ludicrous - if i worked hard to keep my body in top fitness, and regularly played football to entertain potentially millions of people around the world, i'd want a hell of a lot more than £2,500 especially if the board are sitting there rubbing their hands together from TV deals and other advertising revenue. That wouldn't be fair at all. I think footballers should get a decent percentage of the money the club receive - but in a perfect world they wouldn't receive as much money in the top flight. But yes, you can't enforce a wage cap here unless it was global, else all the good players would leave to other countries.