Furloughing staff at the club

[frenchred]

24 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

He's better than many in fairness, Branson especially sticks out.

What's the difference?

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, frenchred said:

What's the difference?

Branson has done it for longer.

SL still invests in Bristol, in some quite highly paid individuals whose tax will go to the Treasury.

He's created quite a lot of high value job- Guernsey tax rate is 20%, does any go to the Treasury or simply to Guernsey?

I think he's not as bad as many. Not to say I approve of it as such, but SL is some way down the list.

[Harry]

45 minutes ago, frenchred said:

Use the money sir Steve should be paying in tax?

Steve will have paid more tax into our system and created more wealth, more jobs (and thus even more tax) than you or I could do in 100 lifetimes. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Tax exile billionaire taking cash for non playing staff at a club he directly controls at a time of national crisis however much he's done, is not a good look.

Granted it is complex- not least the amount of wealth he's created but it'd make a good headline! My first offering.

Quote

'Tax exile billionaire takes cash for staff...'

Mind you, could say the same about Joe Lewis- even more so in his case?

He's quite a bit worse tbh- Lewis that is. In fact the more I read about JL, its totally lawful but he's a complete ********. Worse than SL by far.

Nonetheless, if I was a journo scrabbling around for material, this would be one of the most interesting case studies and I'm convinced of that.

[View from the Dolman]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Took a quick look at the AGL accounts earlier and it is now directly controlled/owned by the Lansdowns as opposed to Bristol City FC or Bristol City Holdings

Not true. False. Just 100% wrong.

[frenchred]

30 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Branson has done it for longer.

SL still invests in Bristol, in some quite highly paid individuals whose tax will go to the Treasury.

He's created quite a lot of high value job- Guernsey tax rate is 20%, does any go to the Treasury or simply to Guernsey?

I think he's not as bad as many. Not to say I approve of it as such, but SL is some way down the list.

Branson has created a lot more jobs than Steve, however you look at it. He is also a great boss to work for (I don't) if you ask the majority of his staff despite his public persona

[frenchred]

29 minutes ago, Harry said:

Steve will have paid more tax into our system and created more wealth, more jobs (and thus even more tax) than you or I could do in 100 lifetimes. 

100% agree with you mate, still don't make it correct though

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

Not true. False. Just 100% wrong.

Said it was a quick look.

 

Quote

 

ASHTON GATE LIMITED

Company number 05450440

Follow this company File for this company

• CompanyOverviewfor ASHTON GATE LIMITED (05450440)
• Filing historyfor ASHTON GATE LIMITED (05450440)

• Peoplefor ASHTON GATE LIMITED (05450440)

• Chargesfor ASHTON GATE LIMITED (05450440)
• Registersfor ASHTON GATE LIMITED (05450440)
• Morefor ASHTON GATE LIMITED (05450440)

• Officers
• Persons with significant control

2 active persons with significant control / 0 active statements

Mr Stephen Lansdown ACTIVE

Correspondence address

Pula House, La Grande Rue, St. Martin, Guernsey, Guernsey, GY4 6RT

Notified on

1 June 2018

Date of birth

August 1952

Nationality

British

 

 

Nature of control

Ownership of shares – More than 25% but not more than 50%

Country of residence

Guernsey

Mrs Margaret Lansdown ACTIVE

Correspondence address

Pula House, La Grande Rue, St. Martin, Guernsey, Guernsey, GY4 6RT

Notified on

1 June 2018

Date of birth

May 1955

Nationality

British

 

 

Nature of control

Ownership of shares – More than 25% but not more than 50%

Country of residence

Guernsey

 

Always assumed it was Bristol City Holdings, unless it's changed again since?

This is it literally now, on CH.

Well that's a bit funny as the accounts themselves say:

Quote

Year Ended 31 May 2019

26  Parent and ultimate parent undertaking

The company's immediate parent is Bristol City Holdings Limited, incorporated in England & Wales.

Well whether it's through BCH, Pula Sport, Pula or directly they control it one way or another- not necessarily taking care of their staff are they?

[Davefevs]

Liverpool U-turn on furloughing and will now find alternative means of funding non-playing staff....apologising in the process.

[View from the Dolman]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Said it was a quick look.

 

Always assumed it was Bristol City Holdings, unless it's changed again since?

This is it literally now, on CH.

Well that's a bit funny as the accounts themselves say:

Well whether it's through BCH, Pula Sport, Pula or directly they control it one way or another- not necessarily taking care of their staff are they?

A person with significant control doesn't make them the immediate shareholders. Mr and Mrs Lansdown have indirectly significant control - that much is obvious to anyone.

Ashton Gate Limited remains 100% owned by Bristol City Holdings Limited. The assertion that "it is now directly controlled/owned by the Lansdowns as opposed to Bristol City FC or Bristol City Holdings" is simply not accurate.

[Mr Popodopolous]

They did the right thing in the end- well done to them.

Have to say @Davefevs Fenway seem to have form for big errors then rapid u-turns. I remember a walkout in early 2016 over some new category of ticket prices, which was planned then sharply reversed.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/10/liverpool-back-down-ticket-prices-77

Similarity there?

22 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

A person with significant control doesn't make them the immediate shareholders. Mr and Mrs Lansdown have indirectly significant control - that much is obvious to anyone.

Ashton Gate Limited remains 100% owned by Bristol City Holdings Limited. The assertion that "it is now directly controlled/owned by the Lansdowns as opposed to Bristol City FC or Bristol City Holdings" is simply not accurate.

We're splitting hairs- not exactly taking care of their staff are they. Don't get me wrong you expect it from some clubs or some owners, but I thought better of them- which is one reason I'm quite critical.

As for AGL staff, I don't have a clue how you'd work out their rate- casual staff. What's 80% of 0 anyone?? Mind you, zero hour contracts are perfectly sensible for matchday staff, they really are and for both parties, but in this scenario it throws up problems.

Quote

"UK Tax exile fobs off staff to UK er, taxpayer would you believe"

Though it does say that on 1st June 2018, ceased for Bristol City Holdings, in terms of Person's with Significant Control.

[Ron W]

52 minutes ago, Harry said:

Steve will have paid more tax into our system and created more wealth, more jobs (and thus even more tax) than you or I could do in 100 lifetimes. 

And he's reaped the rewards of that, too. If you paid millions of pounds in tax Harry I doubt you'd be in a particularly healthy financial situation. It's incomparable.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, RonWalker said:

And he's reaped the rewards of that, too. If you paid millions of pounds in tax Harry I doubt you'd be in a particularly healthy financial situation. It's incomparable.

Still think he's better than a lot of them though. Ratcliffe, or Philip Green to name two more.

[Ron W]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Still think he's better than a lot of them though. Ratcliffe, or Philip Green to name two more.

Definitely, but it's not a competition. It's not subjective. If you have absolute barrel loads of cash you have absolutely no moral grounding to rely on the taxpayer for handouts intended to help businesses genuinely at risk of bankruptcy.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, RonWalker said:

Definitely, but it's not a competition. It's not subjective. If you have absolute barrel loads of cash you have absolutely no moral grounding to rely on the taxpayer for handouts intended to help businesses genuinely at risk of bankruptcy.

Yeah I have sympathy with that view.

Alternatively, if players were taking an equivelant cut given how reliant clubs at this level are on owner funding/loans/equity I can see maybe a taxpayer funded furlough if and only if the most expensively remunerated employees take a non furloughed but equivelant % cut.

[Ron W]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yeah I have sympathy with that view.

Alternatively, if players were taking an equivelant cut given how reliant clubs at this level are on owner funding/loans/equity I can see maybe a taxpayer funded furlough if and only if the most expensively remunerated employees take a non furloughed but equivelant % cut.

The players definitely have some moral responsibility I agree, they're hardly shopping in Lidl and eating pot noodles, but if you're an owner who appears on the Sunday TImes Rich List you don't really have much grounding to expect any favours from anyone else financially.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, RonWalker said:

The players definitely have some moral responsibility I agree, they're hardly shopping in Lidl and eating pot noodles, but if you're an owner who appears on the Sunday TImes Rich List you don't really have much grounding to expect any favours from anyone else financially.

Oh yeah I do get that, if a billionaire and one who has- in retirement granted- taken that approach to tax as he was 65, 66 when he went into tax exile, and you can afford to pay expensive staff it's a bit rich to furlough lower and middling earners.

Was thinking more like Leeds did- all in it together. 'We're taking a hit, some of our fans will be taking a hit- it's a tough old time- we will defer until play resumes or take a 20% deferral/hit'. Something- a grand gesture.

[Mr Popodopolous]

As an aside, I wonder how the rugby lot will feel about it.

25% cut for you...Full whack (basic full whack yes but same for rugby) for football.

[Ron W]

12 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Oh yeah I do get that, if a billionaire and one who has- in retirement granted- taken that approach to tax as he was 65, 66 when he went into tax exile, and you can afford to pay expensive staff it's a bit rich to furlough lower and middling earners.

Was thinking more like Leeds did- all in it together. 'We're taking a hit, some of our fans will be taking a hit- it's a tough old time- we will defer until play resumes or take a 20% deferral/hit'. Something- a grand gesture.

Yeah absolutely, I bet the bastards only did it so we have to say something nice about them.

[Lrrr]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

As an aside, I wonder how the rugby lot will feel about it.

25% cut for you...Full whack (basic full whack yes but same for rugby) for football. 

Impossible to compare the two due to situations with funding sources 

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, hodge said:

Impossible to compare the two due to situations with funding sources 

Still ultimately owned by the same, both run at losses (in the main), both losses would surely ultimately be covered by the Lansdowns.

I see what you're saying of course but Lansdown family pick up the slack in both cases.

Rugby ran at a profit in 2018/19 but all clubs had the Fair Value Gain on Fixed Asset Investment of nearly £7.4m- that aside, neither club is self-sustaining. Our £12m profit would've been a £25-26m loss without profit on disposal of player registrations.

[Mr Popodopolous]

49 minutes ago, RonWalker said:

Yeah absolutely, I bet the bastards only did it so we have to say something nice about them.

It's funny really. Some undoubted villains of the piece have remained so (Mike Ashley- furloughing Newcastle and trying to keep SD open) but some have played it quite cleverly.

Chelsea- well Chelsea are Chelsea. Abramovich is an oligarch, yet is as of now is still paying all staff and the Chelsea Hotel for NHS workers for 2 months.

Man City, who I've got massive issues with on the FFP front- still paying all staff.

Leeds- This gesture.

Whereas Liverpool and Tottenham, much praised by the media for reasons on and off the pitch, both do the furlough thing- pretty upside down really!

While of course I must point out that Liverpool reversed it.

While I'm at it, @View from the Dolman was more bothered about scoring points over ownership structure than debating the issue in hand- says a lot. Nice deflection there.

[1960maaan]

30 minutes ago, hodge said:

Impossible to compare the two due to situations with funding sources 

Not only that, but with Rugby having a salary cap and Bristol hoovering up very good players, it's a way of reducing the wage bill. This in turn, this is my cynical side talking , will free up money for even more signings.   

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Not only that, but with Rugby having a salary cap and Bristol hoovering up very good players, it's a way of reducing the wage bill. This in turn, this is my cynical side talking , will free up money for even more signings.   

Is rugby salary cap absolute though ie absolute over one season/financial year, or does it roll over like with FFP?

Could be a goer though- that said seems to be collective across the board or at least quite a few clubs taking part.

[1960maaan]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Is rugby salary cap absolute though ie absolute over one season/financial year, or does it roll over like with FFP?

Could be a goer though- that said seems to be collective across the board or at least quite a few clubs taking part.

Not 100% sure how it works , I think it is yearly. I would have thought Bristol would be close to the limit, loans from Saracens and apparently signed one of the best players around (my info comes from my Brother in Law who IS a Rugby fan). Maybe clubs see it as a way around the cap somehow, deferrals or change to a bonus scheme ?

[reddoh]

Has anybody thought that clubs are still guessing and maybe playing the long game furlough staff will still have money next transfer window(whenever) or do the right thing and pay staff , major disadvantage next transfer window  

bean counters will still be counting and box tickers will still be ticking.

fans will be disgruntled whatever the club does.

Politicians will forget the hero's once it comes to paying them a fair wage and they feel safe.

the meek will inherit the earth once the more important people let them(never I guess).

and the world keeps spinning. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Eminently possible but pretty disgusting... 

Then again this is a great sport but an industry with a lot of unpleasant types, a lot of ******* so it's eminently possible.

Given though that players wages make up the bulk of a club's expenditure, it'd only make full sense if players had a deferral or cut as well running concurrently.

[reddoh]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Eminently possible but pretty disgusting... 

Then again this is a great sport but an industry with a lot of unpleasant types, a lot of ******* so it's eminently possible.

Given though that players wages make up the bulk of a club's expenditure, it'd only make full sense if players had a deferral or cut as well running concurrently.

The contract says No.

[Mr Popodopolous]

20 minutes ago, reddoh said:

The contract says No.

Understand the contractual terms but it'd be nice to see a greater awareness from a lot of players.

[reddoh]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Football agent are we? Or otherwise in the industry. Like I say a lot of *******.

You seem the type...

No just retired and watching all my baskets getting hit by this virus but still smiling and getting on with life helping my family where I can and also others if I can.