• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

More investigations for the mags from HMRC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Fish said:
There looks like there was something dodgy going on for a few of our transfers and it's not a great shock given the owner and his cronies. However I can't imagine that Newcastle are unique in trying to get around UK tax laws (or tax laws of other countries for that matter). Charnley isn't exactly a shrewd operator :lol: Sounds like there's a particular French agency involved so they've likely tried it on with other clubs.

If that's the case I'd expect this investigation leads onto the investigation of other clubs' transfers. The more clubs that are guilty of it the better for us. The bigger the clubs involved the better still.

I reckon if we're found guilty, we'll get a fine from HRMC, and possibly a fine from the Football authorities. I'd be shocked if we were given a points deduction, but even if we are it'll surely be less than for going into administration. Certainly we wouldn't be kicked out of the league system :lol: .

I'm not stressing about it at all.
Click to expand...

it just doesn't relate to those up the road (if it does, you are in even more bother) but I suspect a few others will be involved.

What is alleged is actually cheating on the footballing side, as other clubs are restricted (allegedly) by the fair play rules. by doing what they are doing it is quite possible they are allowing there spending to be even greater, which is detrimental to somebody obeying the rules. then there is the taxman side. dont want to upset the taxman is pretty good rule. even if you win, it will cost money
 

Grumpy Old Man said:
The court papers made available so far in the judgement of the application to have the search ruled illegal only refer to arrangements for payments to player and agents. Most detail has been given in the Demba Ba transfer, where it's alleged (need to choose my words carefully here) that payments represented as being for agency services were, in fact, contractual obligations to the player. This evades PAYE and employer's NI, and also permits an inflated input VAT claim, since the whole payment is shown as a VATable purchase of agency services. This seems to be the allegation in the Ba case. Of course, it's unlikely that HMRC will have shown their full hand, as they haven't yet had a chance to examine the documents seized from NUFC.
Click to expand...


Clear and concise as usual ..... would you like to help me with my tax situation ;)

Seriously, I've no doubt that there are always 2 distinct aspects to any HMRC investigation with which you might agree.

First there's the necessary 'proof' to get their foot in the door which, in high profile cases, is always 'leaked'.

Secondly they'll use opportunity that to investigate 'the books' to look for as many 'TIC's' as possible.

They're after money and once they scent blood they'll do absolutely anything to justify their actions.

SebastienELLISbexter said:
Literally in the news though mate, not exactly strange is it
Click to expand...

I'd happily state that, if this was Man Utd/Chelsea/Liverpool there would be a well visited thread on the subject.

This is, after all, “a systematic abuse of the tax system and therefore .... potentially the subject of criminal proceedings”.

It's not just another suggested bit of 'tapping up' or a bung to a manager.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reiver said:
Clear and concise as usual ..... would you like to help me with my tax situation ;)

Seriously, I've no doubt that there are always 2 distinct aspects to any HMRC investigation with which you might agree.

First there's the necessary 'proof' to get their foot in the door which, in high profile cases, is always 'leaked'.

Secondly they'll use opportunity that to investigate 'the books' to look for as many 'TIC's' as possible.

They're after money and once they scent blood they'll do absolutely anything to justify their actions.



I'd happily state that, if this was Man Utd/Chelsea/Liverpool there would be a well visited thread on the subject.

This is, after all, “a systematic abuse of the tax system and therefore .... potentially the subject of criminal proceedings”.

It's not just another suggested bit of 'tapping up' or a bung to a manager.
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely. Once they've launched an investigation in a given year, they can look at any succeeding years, and the previous six. And if they find anything in those six years, they can go back a further six years, etc.
 
maghater said:
Like the sound of winding up order better:lol:
Click to expand...

I know nothing about this subject but, with Newcastle, it might not be that simple.

@Grumpy Old Man will probably know but imo it would be different because they don't own the land the club sits on so there's no value there.

Not so much a 'Cathedral on the hill' ..... more a council plot on a slight incline.

Would the stadium be taken over by NUFC2017 and a new debt free club installed?

Dunno tbh, but as we all know 'Newcastle is more than just a club' ..... it's a tax dodge :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reiver said:
I know nothing about this subject but, with Newcastle, it might not be that simple.

@Grumpy Old Man will probably know but imo it would be different because they don't own the land the club sits on so there's no value there.

Would the stadium be taken over by NUFC2017 and a new debt free club installed?

Dunno tbh, but as we all know 'Newcastle is more than just a club' it's a tax dodge :lol:
Click to expand...

To be honest, from their accounts, they could probably pay their way out of any incoming bill from HMRC, although their transfer budget for a couple of seasons might not stretch as far as an Aiden McGeady ;)

Even in a winding-up situation, a liquidator will attempt to sell the business as a going concern, in which case a sale of assets to a newco (see Rangers for details) would be more or less a given.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
To be honest, from their accounts, they could probably pay their way out of any incoming bill from HMRC, although their transfer budget for a couple of seasons might not stretch as far as an Aiden McGeady ;)

Even in a winding-up situation, a liquidator will attempt to sell the business as a going concern, in which case a sale of assets to a newco (see Rangers for details) would be more or less a given.
Click to expand...
would they force the sale through a winding up petition depsite the fact they may have the means to settle a potentially large backdated tax bill?
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
To be honest, from their accounts, they could probably pay their way out of any incoming bill from HMRC, although their transfer budget for a couple of seasons might not stretch as far as an Aiden McGeady ;)

Even in a winding-up situation, a liquidator will attempt to sell the business as a going concern, in which case a sale of assets to a newco (see Rangers for details) would be more or less a given.
Click to expand...
Even if they pay HMRC up what they owe (providing they are guilty), they'll still be punished by the premier league and f a
 
pavarotti1980 said:
would they force the sale through a winding up petition depsite the fact they may have the means to settle a potentially large backdated tax bill?
Click to expand...

No; if you look at the majority of previous cases where HMRC have issued winding up orders for overdue tax, it's usually result in payment being forthcoming. A judge will only grant the winding-up order if it's clearly demonstrable that the taxpayer is incapable of meeting the debt. Of course, if a winding up order was sought on public interest grounds that would be different, but for that to happen it would normally need other forms of criminality, like fraud on the public (eg "boiler room" investment companies, dodgy paving companies, etc)

horselover said:
Even if they pay HMRC up what they owe (providing they are guilty), they'll still be punished by the premier league and f a
Click to expand...

No disagreement from me there - I suspect it might involve a change of division if it's proven to be a systematic abuse, rather than a one-off.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
No; if you look at the majority of previous cases where HMRC have issued winding up orders for overdue tax, it's usually result in payment being forthcoming. A judge will only grant the winding-up order if it's clearly demonstrable that the taxpayer is incapable of meeting the debt. Of course, if a winding up order was sought on public interest grounds that would be different, but for that to happen it would normally need other forms of criminality, like fraud on the public (eg "boiler room" investment companies, dodgy paving companies, etc)



No disagreement from me there - I suspect it might involve a change of division if it's proven to be a systematic abuse, rather than a one-off.
Click to expand...

Have you considered consolidating all of your posts into one monthly easy to manage post :lol:
 
Reiver said:
You keep coming on saying what people are thinking, why not post what you think and leave it at that.

I haven't seen a single poster 'convinced of anything' or in this 'frenzy' you claim ...... you're just seeing what you want to see, ironic from your other comments.



Would I be right in saying it could involve incoming and outgoing transfers, wages, agents fees, other income from TV etc and advertising deals with Ashley.

Some appear to believe it's just the sum total of a few transfer fees.
Click to expand...
I'm taking it the usual fat fucktards are trying rabidly to convince themselves and other Greggs munchers there's nothing to worry about and it'll all just blow over?
 
Reiver said:
You just can't stop speaking for other people can you, you don't know better than me what I'm thinking.

I'm giving my opinion based on the likely outcome of what I can currently see and from my own experience.

'Convincing myself' would suggest, to a degree, I'm actively attempting to force that opinion which I'm certainly not.

It's already my opinion that Ashley would rather stab a colleague in the back, I don't need to convince myself.

It's also my opinion that a company managing director would receive a custodial sentence if proved guilty of serious and deliberate tax fraud.

You can't tell other people that they're deliberately 'convincing themselves'.
Click to expand...

Convincing needn't be "forcing", it can be reasoning, arguing, influencing, or guiding, or cajoling. I could convince someone that Arrichi's ice cream is the best in the region without "forcing" them to agree. But then you know that full well. If your argument consists of quibbling over semantics, don't you think it's a bit silly?

Ashley has, on a number of occasions proven his loyalty to friends and colleagues at Newcastle. However if it saves his investment, I'm comfortable with Charnley being thrown under the bus. However, nobody knows what the outcome will be and yet you've stated that a custodial sentence is almost certain.

The fairly obvious point I was making, way back when, is that without knowing enough facts, or there being a sufficiently similar situation recently that set precedent, it's pointless to make predictions about winding up orders, transfer embargos, or expulsion from the league.

If nothing like that happens, you'll look very foolish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top