denise coates of stoke city fc, (not transfer rumour)

kildaremackem said:
how do nyou know it should be more? yoiu dont know how much she earned..and her company also pays tax..her total contribution is far higher than the £480m..
as for nefarious activituies..gambling is a working class pursuit sneered at by middle class people..
many of those middle class who sneer at gambling think nothing of taking coke at the weekends for exmaple...somehting far more harmful to innocents than gambling ever could be
Click to expand...

No its not. Her contribution is what she pays on her income. Her companies contribution is what it pays in corporation tax and her employees contribution is what they pay in PAYE.

Does my head in when business owners try to claim the tax their employees pay as somehow down to them. Bloke on 5 live years ago claimed it was OK for him to be in a tax avoidance scheme as the staff he employed contributed hunderds of thousands in tax. The employees get paid for making money for the company and then THEY pay tax on what THEY have earned. The boss still has to pay his/her own tax but often does not.....
 


thecloughywobble said:
That tax paid figure (£481.7m) appears to have been on her earnings (i.e. the sums she paid herself for the year from what is effectively her company) of £8448m (which is almost £8.5billion) which - if I've got my sums right - is an effective tax rate of ~5.7%. Nice.
Click to expand...

Your wrong - you are confusing her net worth with her earnings.
tynevalleyblackcat said:
No its not. Her contribution is what she pays on her income. Her companies contribution is what it pays in corporation tax and her employees contribution is what they pay in PAYE.

Does my head in when business owners try to claim the tax their employees pay as somehow down to them. Bloke on 5 live years ago claimed it was OK for him to be in a tax avoidance scheme as the staff he employed contributed hunderds of thousands in tax. The employees get paid for making money for the company and then THEY pay tax on what THEY have earned. The boss still has to pay his/her own tax but often does not.....
Click to expand...

It is self evidently ok to be in a tax avoidance scheme
 
Last edited:
kildaremackem said:
eh? she didnt pay herself £8.5bn last yeatr?
and her company paid ytax as well..corproation tax..which is not included in the figure denispe coates paid?

well if your sleeping in a n nhs hospital or something you should..she helped pay for it
Click to expand...
If the NHS was ran competently we would get a bed.

However it a a complete mess and its a mouth we continue to feed with wads of cash.
 
Biffo The Bear said:
Many been saying that for decades as well.
For me clubs spending these sums isn’t the biggest issue. Finding a way to give the lower league clubs more financial assistance is.
Seed the Cup draws for example. Lower seeding automatically play at home.
Add a % to all transfer fees, like a VAT of sorts. All goes into a pool and handed to lower leagues / grassroots. A £50m fee, becoming £55 for example, wouldn’t break the purchasing clubs but that £5m would do a lot of good in L2.
Click to expand...
Seeding and lower sides being at home isn’t the best thing for them financially due to the FA split in cup games. They’re better off playing at a bigger stadium in a lot of instances
 
Dan The Man said:
Seeding and lower sides being at home isn’t the best thing for them financially due to the FA split in cup games. They’re better off playing at a bigger stadium in a lot of instances
Click to expand...
Aren’t they more likely to get the Sky cash if at home?
Not sure anyway. Perhaps the lower ranked side has the option of switching the tie should they wish to do so?
 
Eric gates hair said:
If the NHS was ran competently we would get a bed.

However it a a complete mess and its a mouth we continue to feed with wads of cash.
Click to expand...

Not only that but our City has long since been forgotten about by central government, shockingly by new Labour too, who have totally lost touch. The Coates' made a large contribution to the local hospital during COVID.

The Tories you expect.
 
Biffo The Bear said:
Why don’t you agree?
Owners should be free to spend what they like on their asset.
Click to expand...

Because it distorts the very idea of a sport league. The ideal league is one where all members have a chance at the start of the season - probably unattainable in practice, but that's no reason not to try to get as close as possible. If one team can simply outgun all the others, that's an aberration.

There's a clear sporting argument in going the other way, and banning all owner inputs, with the possible exception of an once-only input to prevent an insolvemcy, to be followed by a compulsory sale to another owner.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Because it distorts the very idea of a sport league. The ideal league is one where all members have a chance at the start of the season - probably unattainable in practice, but that's no reason not to try to get as close as possible. If one team can simply outgun all the others, that's an aberration.

There's a clear sporting argument in going the other way, and banning all owner inputs, with the possible exception of an once-only input to prevent an insolvemcy, to be followed by a compulsory sale to another owner.
Click to expand...
I would totally agree with a mechanism that somehow ensures clubs don't / can't spend to the point of risking their very existence. What i don't agree with is limiting spend that is well within the financial means of the owners. There has always been big and small, rich and poor. Newcastle have, for much of my time as a supporter, been in the small / poor category. It didn't diminish my enjoyment. It perhaps limits expectation. It never limited the hope that we would win a Cup. As they say it is the hope that hurts so much!!
 
Dan The Man said:
I’m sure they stopped the ties being switched. Didn’t Stevenage want to switch it the tie to your place years back but the FA wouldn’t allow it?
Click to expand...
I believe so and that must be to the detriment of the smaller clubs. Still think a 'transfer tax' to fund a pool for lower league, and grassroots football, is the way to go. As i said in an earlier post, adding say 5M to a 50M transfer fee wouldn't make a difference to Newcastle, Liverpool, Man City. That 5M would do so much in, for example, the Northern League. A 10% tax on all Premier League fees above 20M would have generated how much last season?
 
Biffo The Bear said:
I believe so and that must be to the detriment of the smaller clubs. Still think a 'transfer tax' to fund a pool for lower league, and grassroots football, is the way to go. As i said in an earlier post, adding say 5M to a 50M transfer fee wouldn't make a difference to Newcastle, Liverpool, Man City. That 5M would do so much in, for example, the Northern League. A 10% tax on all Premier League fees above 20M would have generated how much last season?
Click to expand...
Agreed there needs to be a way for the money to filter down to the lower leagues especially players being poached by bigger clubs
 

Back
Top