Delta

4 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

No, they aren't.

No club is too big or too small for any division.

 

Only a moron would suggest otherwise. 

"Moron"?

As if anyone can forget your moronic, bitter anti-Kodjia posts on Villa Talk. 

1 minute ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

Still here?

No - It's a figment of your imagination.

5 hours ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

“I have no interest in Bristol City” says villa fan posting about Villa on the Bristol City forum

Tidied for you

1 hour ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

Why are Bristol City football club living rent free inside your massive balloon head you embarrassing mess? 

I think you are flattering your team a tad.

I have no interest in Bristol City - I know nothing about them other than Baker & Weiman play for you as well as some bloke you call Fam.

Aston Villa live rent free on this forum so I comment (down to the fact that Aston Villa is my favourite subject).

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

One other aspect to consider is that the big loss was despite £50m in a combination of sale and leaseback and HS2 revenue.

I won't debate FFP much beyond the FFP thread but a big loss would be quite possible- and if FFP regs aren't relaxed you will have less leeway than you would have otherwise.

As I stated on the ffp thread, the first 2 seasons would be okay.  That’s based on ffp alone.  With another £100m profit from sales, we would probably be okay into the third year.

21 minutes ago, pillred said:

That's a quick reversal of fortune £100 million without touching the parachute payments, only 2 years ago you missed paying HMRC and were threatened with administration so where has all this money suddenly come from, reading between the lines without those parachute payments you would be effed and even with them nearly all your better players will be like  rats leaving a sinking ship, what makes you so confident you would avoid doing a Sunderland? I would say it was a distinct possibility there is also the slight problem of ffp to contend with.

You answered your own question.

How much do you think we would get for our best players?  £100m plus for the top 3.

Why didn’t Fulham “do a Sunderland “?

We wouldn’t have ffp to contend with as the majority of that £100m plus would be pure profit.

5 minutes ago, pillred said:

I can only think your lot must be fervently wishing the season is cancelled as that's the only way you will be playing premier league football next season otherwise it's sure to be two relegations since the Premier league started, and I have a feeling if you do come down a Sunderland is on the cards as you go into financial meltdown and lose any decent players you have currently got where as we hope it does get finished as we have a reasonable chance of making the playoffs and who knows replacing you.

You couldn’t be more wrong.

cancelling obviously guarantees staying up.  However, we have a game in hand over all our rivals. Furthermore, we have 6 games out of the remaining 10 at home. Some of those rivals only have 4 home games left.  Finally, our key midfielder will be fit enough to return from injury. Our slide started when he came out of the team.

we have no chance of doing a Sunderland and if we go down, we’d have over £100m to spend on players without even touching the parachute money.

you lot are miles off the likes of Fulham, forest and Brentford. You’ve no chance of promotion.

47 minutes ago, Alan Dicks' Barmy Army said:

"BIG BOYS" you are even more delusional than I thought. Villa are far from being anything in the premier. 

It's funny how your biggest rivals are the blue nose from small Heath 

Your supporters are just like Leeds supporters you harp on about what a massive club you are yet you're still living off 1982.

At best you're a yo yo club between the prem and championship, you and everyone else knows your going down when this season gets completed so we'll see you next season. 

At least you will then be able to experience a decent ground not like your shit pit that has stood still for 30 years making it one of the worst grounds in your league. 

I hope you enjoy the misery of your upcoming relegation 

I love the sterotypes I read on here.  Nobody goes around living off 82 and they never have.  Likewise, Leeds - I never see them harping on about being a massive club either (although they are too big for the Championship.

As for being a yo-yo club. We've been relegated once since the PL started and that was due to an owner taking what money out of the club that he could.

You think just because you have a new little ground that it's any good?  Ask supporters across the land their favourite stadium.  Villa Park will be right up there whereas I doubt most will even know where Ashton Gate is.

35 minutes ago, Super said:

You are right there is no rivalry. Just most on here dont like Villa.

Since August 2016 when we signed Kodjia.

Shows exactly what a bunch of two bob, bitter bunch of small timers you are.  Prior to that, our paths hadn't crossed for donkeys years.

3 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

But for every Leeds & Liverpool there’s a Villa. 

We are not your rivals.

Just because we took Kodjia off you doesn't mean there is a rivalry, other than in your bitter heads.

You just worry your pretty heads over Bristol Rovers and Bath City and leave the big boys to contest big boy rivalries.

12 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Lawyers will be rubbing their hands, football financial directors will be rubbing their eyes in disbelief at the witholding/return of broadcast income.

In fact, I'd say the PL has 750 million reasons not to.

Pops - There will be no lawyers rubbing their hands.  The TV companies are covered by both contract and statute.  This is why the PL are so keen to get the season played out - They know the alternative is to miss out on circa £750m.

19 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Hi @Delta interested in your take on one issue.

FFP. Seems not to be getting suspended as it stands in the Championship- not if that City AM article anything to go by.

In the event you end up back at this level in the next season, it could be interesting? Mind you, for the bulk of if not all the division too!

My personal view is that I hope they don't suspend it, but merely tweak it as necessary in the circs.

Personally, I'm still of the opinion that FFP will be relaxed in some form or other.

However, if we find ourselves back down, we will most likely receive £100m + in transfer sales.  Whilst this will probably be spread over a 4 year period, it will still see over £25m come in for the relevant year.

From our previous experience, I sense that relegated teams have 2 seasons in which to get back up - The 3rd year of parachute payments falling substantially.  If we went down, with Leeds & WBA out of the way, I'd be fairly confident of us going back up within 2 years.

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They might have it reasonably under control, with the parachute payments and if they keep costs fairly low. If they're fairly prudent.

It could well be the case that this payment will not fall under the parameters of FFP (see Villa's payment to Xia).

You would assume that the new owner was aware that this money would have to be paid.  With that in mind, you'd think a contingency is in place - Either parachute money or a cash injection directly from the new owner.

PS - How much would the McAlpine stadium be worth (dons tin hat).

2 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

Sorry Delta, my question was badly worded.

i'm not saying a self employed person would pass savings on to a client. If they cannot work and claim the figure quoted by the gov't, would that be tax free or would that go to the business and be taxable on any self assessment in the future?

As far as I'm aware, nothing is in place at this point for the self-employed.

If and when something is introduced, it will almost certainly be classed as income and therefore taxable (provided that the worker earns over his personal tax allowance for that year (which is around £12,000 I believe).

13 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, same here in Financial Services, Limited or Umbrella.  As Director (80/20 with Mrs F) I don't have an employment contract, so think we will fall down the gap of any support, other than the Business Loan...which we don't want / need, but there will be plenty of others that do.  As for Umbrella, you sign an Employment Contract but if you can't work I can't see Umbrella covering you.  I'm pretty sure Client will reject any invoices you raise through Umbrella, because you can only invoice for days worked (in theory).

As for me, contract finishes 2nd April....main reason being IR35 decisions (notwithstanding the 1 year delay...which came too late), and I'm now isolating for 12 weeks because of Joe so can't go out looking for a new contract / other work.  I'm not moaning, because I'm ok with money in the business to draw on....but I know of others in my situation who will be stuffed.

You are employed that way because your employer is trying to ensure that they do not have to pay you holiday pay.

11 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

Does a self employed person pay tax on the 80% as it goes down as a business payment or is that already deducted, hence the 80%.

What 80%?

Do you mean if he receives £80 instead of £100 from the client?

Why would he want to do that?  Why would he want to evade tax, risk the consequences of doing so, just to save the client £20?

He gets £80 either way so obviously, he might just as well receive it through the books - He has nothing to gain by letting the client off £20.

54 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

With respect, you are the one being a little naive. And yes, people paying for extensions in tens of thousands of cash still happens. In fact buying properties in cash also still happens.

In my experience the majority of tradespeople such as plumbers, electricians, carpenters etc will either except cash if offered to them or will suggest cash to bring down the price of a job. We all know it goes on and sorry if it tars them all with the same brush but that's just the way it is, let's not pretend otherwise. 

As the posters above have pointed out, you are perfectly within your rights to turn down any offers of cash, or set up a ltd company and do it all properly (not that that stops people employed or companies or through companies they own accepting cash.

Do people pay cash for houses to avoid tax?

I would be amazed if anyone paid cash for an extension or if they did, whether the builder would not declare it.  It would take a tax inspector 20 minutes to cross check planning applications and find out who carried out the work.

If an electrician was carrying out a job for say £100, he would end up paying 20% tax (based on the first tax threshold) This means it is worth £80 to him.  What would he possibly have to gain by offering to do the job for £80 cash?  It's still worth the same to him.

Tax evasion is the same throughout industry.  It is not exclusive or even more prevalent to the self-employed.

48 minutes ago, TRL said:

Where have I tarred all self employed with the same brush.. I would revisit what I posted rather what you think I posted.

 

I know what self employed is, I have been there done that in the past and that is why the dodgy ones give the rest a bad name and hence it was aimed at them. 

Making out that people are going around pocketing thousands of pounds cash in hand.  It just doesn't happen.  Who would pay in this way?

You might get a plumber who calls out and changes a washer on a tap or an electrician who comes out to repair a light - These things, people may well just pay cash for.  It might save them £20.  However, if you have an extension built, you're hardly likely to have £40K sitting around the house, nor would you want to pay cash.  You would want evidence of transactions so that if there is any dispute, you can show what you've paid.

I think you are being naive if you think people pocket thousands of pounds in this way - Most would be traceable anyway.

In any case, I don't think self employed are asking for their entire income to be paid, just some kind of support.  I watch the news and I see people going to building sites, not because they want to but because they have no choice.  How can it be fair or reasonable for one builder to get 80% of his wages paid but his workmate (who does exactly the same job) get nothing just because they are employed differently?  To be, it just demonstrates the abuse of workers that goes on and everyone is happy for it to do so when it suits them.

7 hours ago, downendcity said:

I just wonder whether the current unprecedented situation will give the EFL a get out of jail free card, as regards clubs that have potential ffp issues, either on the horizon or under investigation.

No one yet knows the extent of the financial fallout when things get back to normal and I can well imagine the EFL seeing it as an opportunity to wriggle out of awkward confrontations by effectively wiping the slate clean, on the premise of not wanting to jeopardise any clubs future.  I'm not suggesting it is the right thing to do, but depending on ho long it takes for football to return to normal, quite a few clubs could be financially on the ropes and you can bet the EFL would not then want to be seen as the bad guys, by taking action that could tip a club over the edge. 

They would probably dress it up as an opportunity to re-write the rules, having "learned the lessons`' of the mistakes when drafting the current rules.

I'm not quite sure why you think the league are faced with "awkward situations"?

They seem to have dealt with both Birmingham and QPR swiftly and effectively.

I have every confidence in the league dealing with these issues fairly.  Points deductions will still be implemented if wrongdoing has occurred and there will be little room for sympathy (that's just a silly suggestion) as Bolton and Bury will confirm.

7 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What is apparent to non belter trolls,  is that the FL do not want a punishment to jeopardise a clubs future. 

Shaun Harvey was careful with the massive fine QPR got- he did not want it to risk them going into administration or worse.

@havanatopia I'm suggesting that maybe it might not have been a top priority for them. Had Chansiri been banned, would he have continued funding them?

I honestly don't know but it was notable that this wasn't thrown out by the Independent panel as such, more that the EFL dropped them- maybe were accepting the inevitable granted but there's no published judgement etc online anywhere.

I'm not wildly bothered if Chansiri is banned or similar, my hope is that Sheffield Wednesday get their comeuppance.

In what way is it apparent Pops?  Do you have evidence to support this claim or have you just included the word "apparent" in order to add value to your claim?

You yourself have stated many times that there are numerous sanctions available.  If wrongdoing has occurred then it should be addressed.  In this case, the league have decided that no wrongdoing has occurred and you have decided that this is because of Covid 19.

In your blinkered world, everyone is guilty and those who are not charged have benefited from some warped conspiracy theory or other.

6 hours ago, TRL said:

I don't think you read my whole post or you would have read the part where I say those looking to pay cash in hand are just as culpable.

If someone is pushing the quote down and looking to offer cash for obvious reasons then the easy answer, don't accept the offer and insist on auditable payment. If everyone did that that the everyone would get paid a fair wage for a fair job without the unscrupulous undercutting. 

Anway i've made my point and it's only aimed at the cash in hand merchants, no one else.

You tarred an entire sector with the same brush.

If somebody has low tax returns, then naturally, they would only be entitled to minimal support.  However, currently, they don't even have that.

People always think the grass is greener on the other side.  Your view of the self-employed being some kind of Del boy figure with wads of cash in their pockets and under the floorboards being an example.

You should try living the life of the self-employed for a while.  My experience of them is that it's not so rosy - Certainly, many are not in the position to turn work down (to sit at home instead) because someone offers cash.  In fact, in this day and age, cash payments are becoming rarer and rarer as people realise the importance of keeping paper trails and proof of transfer of funds.

Many self-employed don't even have a choice - They are told that is how they are going to be employed by unscrupulous employers.  They work on zero hours contracts and don't enjoy many benefits and rights that others take for granted - Again, I urge you to try living that life for a while and see how you enjoy it.  Many will already have been told there is no work for them, no notice, no holiday pay, just dropped like a lead balloon with no income moving forward.

Taxi drivers are normally self-employed for example.  We all take them for granted - Pick up a phone and one appears to take us from A to B for a few pounds.  I dare say they don't declare all of their earnings.  I would go further and suggest that if they did, once running costs are factored in, they are more or less working for minimum wage, perhaps even less. 

Tax evasion is rife - From the pennies that the self employed don't declare, right up to the thousands of pounds that big businesses don't declare or the millionaire football manager who opens foreign bank accounts in the name of their dog.

36 minutes ago, TRL said:

This is where self employed people (the dodgy ones , its cash in hand guvnor!) will have wished they had not taken those cash in hand jobs, off the books to save themselves some tax returns.

 

Now many are up in arms that they are not getting paid and or wont be getting paid much due to their tax returns.

 

My cousin is one of these tax Dodgers and he is screaming blue murder at the government, he hasn't mentioned the thousands upon thousands of pounds he hasn't paid in tax over the years, which he could of saved for such an event such as this (better still he would have paid the tax due) but instead spunked away on things he didn't need.

 

Yes you cannot tar all self employed people with the same brush, but their are a load out there that will have bought this misery on themselves and contributed in a small way to bringing this country to its knees buy reducing funding for key services.

And those who pay for jobs cash in hand should also take a look at themselves.. also contributing the reduction of funding to key services.  Of gunding of public services themselves has been mismanaged for years, but that is another debate.

Some self employed  people.... Sow what reap you..... rearrange.

I genuinely feel sorry for all those that have complied with tax laws and hope you get your money very soon.

I think you may be a bit confused here or maybe you don't know what you are talking about.

It is usually the case that the tax dodger is the person who is paying for the work "can you do it cheaper for cash guvnor?"

Naturally if there's a bit of VAT to evade along the way then so much the better.

In my experience, the self-employed person will be pressed to drop his rate in order to receive cash.  He is then faced with the prospect of paying tax on an underpaid job or keeping the whole amount which is more or less equal to the amount he would have ended up with if he'd have been paid the going rate.

I think you are doing the self-employed a terrible injustice.

2 hours ago, havanatopia said:

Very flimsy if charges have been dropped due to totally unrelated world events. Surely even the FL would not stoop so low?

It's another one of Pop's famous conspiracy theories.  He thinks that the whole world is conspiring against lil old Bristol.

48 minutes ago, reddoh said:

do us all a favour and self isolate don't touch your keyboard ,phone etc.

Okay mate. No probs.

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I dunno, where there is blame (or a perception of such) there is a claim. 

Clubs are businesses, they submit accounts to Companies House, some list on the Stock Exchange. 

Yes it's best left to football authorities but if there was the prospect of us missing out on £100m+, well I'd expect us to push and explore all lawful avenues. Even more if we were in bottom 3, but had a game in hand and 2 points off safety!

Pops- this goes to vote. You should know this because we’ve discussed it in the ffp thread.

you can’t sue somebody just because a vote goes against you.

4 minutes ago, The Bard said:

The fairest way to deal with this would be to base the final table on the first half of the season where each club has played each other once.  That is a league rather than a half-arsed 70% finished league

It won't happen though..

Wouldn't affect too much _ Liverpool still champs WBA & Leeds promoted.

Have the PL as 24 teams next season with 4 relegated.