 | Forum
Reply | The Next 5 Games
at 16:21 18 Sep 2025
The manager noted as much after the Ipswich game and he was right.
There are elements to how the team play that belong to the Martin regime, such as short or under hit passes from full backs to central midfield where teams seem to out number our players - as we saw in the first half against Portsmouth.
The defenders in particular need some options other than trying to be pinpoint accurate into a crowded area. |
| Forum
Reply | The Next 5 Games
at 16:06 18 Sep 2025
Expecting the present team to acquire enough points to be in touching distance of the top of the table in the next five games, is fantasy.
One of the characteristics of a team in development is inconsistency. The game against Portsmouth was a good example.
Poor first half - better second. We improved again when the subs came on - pity they were too late to influence the result.
The players are still learning how not to play the Martin way. The manager is learning how the Championship works.
If we are top half of the table at Christmas we may be in with a play off shout, but but he end of October - I'd be very surprised. |
| Forum
Reply | The Trump visit - opinions
at 16:00 18 Sep 2025
That would be the EU leaders sucking up to Putin and staying silent about the situation in Gaza?
Personally I'd rather not have a dies in the wool fascist in Hungary claim to be acting on my behalf. |
| Forum
Reply | The Trump visit - opinions
at 14:22 18 Sep 2025
There are options on this site to exclude the non football posts from view - or even to block certain posters if you wish.
Politics is life - football is play. |
| Forum
Thread | The Trump visit - opinions
at 08:54 18 Sep 2025
The media is full of pictures of the orange baby and his plastic wife being fawned over by the British establishment.
I absolutely understand that being on the "right side" of the capricious bullying hypocrite and convicted felon is seen as "necessary" for any number of political or economic reasons but frankly it makes me sick to my soul embarrassed that we have been so reduced.
You? |
| Forum
Reply | Despondency
at 12:29 15 Sep 2025
I think we have enough striker talent ay this level to make a difference, but until the manager works out how to use it (and in my view he failed yesterday) we are a bang average team at this level.
Not sure how many players who started yesterday also played last season regularly but perhaps half? That makes a difference. |
| Forum
Reply | Tyler already getting splinters
at 12:26 15 Sep 2025
Are you really surprised that he has not seen any match minutes?
He spent the last half of last season doing his best not to get injured and with the close season being disrupted by rumours of a transfer, I suspect he was not focussed on his fitness. My guess is that he is not yet fully fit. Trying to get into a Moyes team - always very energetic - whilst unfit was never going to be a quick path.
Is he arrogant and "all about the money"?
I have no idea. I don't know him nor those advising him. My own experience of promising players of that age (from a long time ago) is that they are determined to make the grade and all the noise around transfers and money is very much secondary. Yes his agent etc might be greedy but I suspect that the player really doesn't care at this stage in his career.
If he does not get regular appearances in the second half of this season, we might be able to start thinking he had not got what it takes. |
| Forum
Thread | A game of two halves
at 10:28 15 Sep 2025
I watched the match on TV so perhaps did not get a full picture but my contribution regardless.
First half saw us comprehensively outplayed for two reasons. First, we seemed unable to pass the ball to team mates and instead insisted on punting long balls forward. Against a back four who have limited pace I can see the point in that long ball but it has to be played into channels and not into a space where defenders - generally bigger than the forwards - can head it away easily. That means an early release of the ling ball and that did not happen.
Second, the Portsmouth press was a high block. our midfield had moved forward anticipating the long ball and when it was headed out, they were either too high or too far back to pick up the ball. Whereas the blue midfield was not and consequently caused us issues.
The second half saw a better quality of passing and importantly fewer long balls and more considered build up. Once we had that momentum though, keeping Fraser and Archer on the pitch - small and agile and fast - became a problem because now we had tie and space to hit a centre forward who may have had some physical presence - Robertson or the injured one - but we waited too long to bring them on.
I thought the CB's had a perfectly adequate game for this level. Roerslev needs to improve quickly. Fellows was bullied by an older/wiser player and needs to toughen up.
Given that the team had a lot of new faces and Portsmouth have started the season well, I'm happy with a point. |
| Forum
Reply | Tax Avoidance Schemes
at 18:17 4 Sep 2025
Thanks - I clearly have a lot of catching up to do if I want to go back into this space.
(Which I don't). |
| Forum
Reply | Tax Avoidance Schemes
at 16:40 4 Sep 2025
Agreed but this is very recent and the number of exemptions makes it largely useless. |
| Forum
Reply | Tax Avoidance Schemes
at 16:39 4 Sep 2025
If this interpretation was correct I'd say that every law and trust firm I have had dealings with in the last 30+ years has been breaking the law - advertised or not.
https://octopusmoney.com/wealth-planning
A friend of mine is very senior in this outfit and has spent a long time designing and executing products to "protect wealth" which mainly means keeping assets out of the way of IHT using trusts. To the best of my knowledge they have not had a STOP notice from HMRC.
The action you describe from HMRC is not something I have seen from them in over 40 years working in tax. I do know that HMRC will have a "quiet word" sometimes but their usual approach is hands off and then go to Tribunal/Court if something appears that they don't like.
If you can show me link to an instance or preferably to a piece of law, I'd be interested.
Every day is a learning day. |
| Forum
Reply | Tax Avoidance Schemes
at 15:04 4 Sep 2025
OK thanks.
A trust company is one that is staffed by those expert or competent in administering trust assets. Often they at as "professional trustees" and will be registered with a local regulator to conduct such business.
For a number of tax reasons, trust companies are often not in the UK (because often the purpose of a trust is to hold assets offshore).
If I have interpreted your response correctly a "living trust" is one established by a living person.
So I could, for example, set up a trust for my children, transfer assets to it and they would benefit immediately and/or later, depending on the terms of the trust.
Such devices are often used to avoid inheritance tax. Subject to some care over gifts with reservations etc they can be useful in avoiding tax.
There is no central register of trusts registered in the UK. This Gov't and others have often said that they will introduce law to create a public register but somehow it never quite comes off.
Most firms advising on tax/estate planning will advertise the fact that trusts can be used as above.
https://www.evelyn.com/discover/iht-and-estate-planning-advice-and-solutions-v2/
As an example.
Accepting that it's been perhaps 30 years since I last did personal tax planning - and things can change a lot in that time - I was not aware of any prohibition on advertising the effects of trusts or how to create and manage them. if you have a link to the relevant information saying that, I'd appreciate it. |
| Forum
Reply | Little Britain Angela Raynor
at 14:49 4 Sep 2025
First, she has not avoided the tax, she's paid it.
Second, there is no suggestion that she tried to avoid the tax. She did as her advisers told her.
Third, she can only really be culpable if she failed to give the advisers the correct or full information or did give them that detail, had advice that the liability was £X and then paid a lower sum
Zahawi had a full blown HMRC enquiry in which he was fined over £1m for deliberately concealing information.
Johnson was found to have lied to Parliament.
Cameron benefits from a trust set up by his family which he "forgot" about.
Ashcroft (peer and Tory party donor/treasurer) claims residence in Belize despite having at least two houses in the UK.
Time I think that hysteria gave way to a sense of proportion and a few facts. |
| Forum
Reply | Danny Murphy
at 14:42 4 Sep 2025
Agreed that there are some instances in which is it a requirement (or advisable) to seek HMRC approval.
A share option scheme approval is for the scheme to issue shares/options etc. It will not extend to questions of the worth of shares/options transferred which is where the arguments with HMRC begin.
Certain types of company merger or incorporation of partnerships and sole traders into companies can also apply for clearance with HMRC. Some issues around receipt of foreign dividends and income as well.
All of these require the complete and full disclosure of all relevant information.
The sort of film scheme we saw with V11 (and literally thousands of others some with names you'll recognise, one who was recently knighted) relied for its effectiveness (i.e. a tax repayment made by HMRC without checking whether it was due under their "pay now, check later" policy) on not fully disclosing all the cash flows or connections. |
| Forum
Reply | Tax Avoidance Schemes
at 14:36 4 Sep 2025
What is a "trust firm" please?
I've been in this space a long time and never heard of such a thing.
When we advise clients to set up or form a trust, we have a firm of solicitors do the necessary deeds etc.
Come to that, I'm not sure what a "living trust" is either.
Trusts can be created by any person who is alive and sometimes, a trust can be established via the will of a deceased person. Trusts can also be set up by a company or other incorporated entity.
But what is a "living trust" please? |
| Forum
Reply | Danny Murphy
at 11:48 4 Sep 2025
The pair of "advisers" from Kingsbridge were far from the only ones involved.
As to "charging" them - with what?
There are plenty of rules for financial and investment advisers around adequate risk warnings being issued, suitability, management etc. These are mainly concerned with the giving of partial or negligent advice and can be traced back to the regulation forced upon them by the FCA/FSA who basically underwrite advisory firms.
There is no such regulatory body for matters involving an opinion on tax. HMRC does not and will never "approve" schemes (although this was often claimed) and certainly does not police schemes, pre execution. They will not give you an opinion pre execution either.
So a QC/KC opinion is no better and no worse than Dave down the pub. |
| Forum
Reply | Tax Avoidance Schemes
at 09:59 4 Sep 2025
Some of the comments above about the moral/ethical judgements around doing something legal to avoid tax or illegal to evade tax are points we have addressed many times over the years.
One end of this spectrum says that the people we put in charge of spending our taxes (the Gov't) cannot be trusted for any number of reasons to spend it wisely or in ways that we consider are good for us, our family, our community and our country. In that priority. In order to limit the unwise spending we almost have a moral duty to reduce what we give them.
The other end of that spectrum says that we - the people - want to enjoy the benefits of a first world nation and have a moral duty to aid and assist those who often through no fault of their own cannot support themselves. Consequently we have to accept that those with more resources should contribute more to the tax pot.
Where you fit along that line is wholly subjective.
Our approach is to explain to clients that the Gov't could demand 100% of your earnings, gains, asset sale proceeds, etc. The tax legislation is there to protect taxpayers from that scenario. Where the tax law is missing, ambiguous or unclear it is better to assume that anything other than paying the maximum amount of tax will be seen as avoidance. This takes away the personal judgements as to fairness and moral stance.
It is however a very uncertain picture not helped by incompetence that is almost negligence at HMRC.
We advised on a transaction. Two brothers built a business and sold it for a lot of money (eight figures). One used a series of structures and paid around 10% of his share in tax. The other deliberately shaped his transaction to pay the maximum tax he could - around 35%. We submitted the calculations together. Both were agreed by HMRC without a whisper.
Who was "right"?
I don't know and it doesn't matter. |
| Forum
Reply | Tax Avoidance Schemes
at 09:43 4 Sep 2025
An opinion from a QC/KC is exactly that - an opinion.
It's not a free ticket, not a guaranteed outcome, just one man's opinion.
It was well known that some QC's were essentially guns for hire. Given them the "right" question and you got the "right" answer.
I'll not name them here but a QC called Jolyon Maugham - founder of the Good Law Project - wrote an article called "The boys who won't say no" which criticised named barristers. That was over ten years ago.
https://taxjustice.net/2014/08/18/8194/
(Be careful as the Tax Justice Network is run by a purist who has some odd and unworkable ideas.)
A true story.
I surveyed a group of clients (some of them pro players) who used film schemes. Total population around 1,200. Had about 900 responses. Of those, less than 30 said that they had read the QC opinion. Of that 30, less than 5 had read the instructions to the QC that he answered in his opinion.
Why?
Because tax is complicated. Because they trusted somebody who was a professional. Because they were reckless with their time and money.
Not one of them got a second opinion. Some did ask the introducer for a second opinion. Those not put off by the costs and negative reaction of the introducer said that because the second opinion did not come out and say "stay away", they saw it as approval.
Not one of them asked HMRC about the scheme BEFORE using it. (I know the TV program said otherwise but having met with and spoken with the lawyer heading the V11, I can confidently say that they have not one shred of evidence that any such conversation with HMRC took place.)
I can also say that the V11 group has been very good at exploiting the fact that they are well known names to elicit a TV program in an attempt to garner some sympathy and to counter the often harsh rhetoric of HMRC. There are tens of thousands of less well known taxpayers who are in a very similar situation who have been fighting this for close on 20 years. Sadly to my certain knowledge at least half a dozen have committed suicide. |
| Forum
Reply | Tax Avoidance Schemes
at 17:13 2 Sep 2025
The schemes used here really began with Labour's Blair and Brown who introduced tax relief for investment in British films. The budget for this relief was initially around £40m.
It worked. Many films were made here and UK studios, pre and post production and other services boomed. And Blair/Brown got to rub shoulders with Hollywood glitterati.
In the late 1990's along came outfits like Kingsbridge, Ingenious, Matrix, etc. They commoditised the tax relief. They realised that if you put in 20p/£, borrowed 80p/£ you got tax relief on £1 which at that time was worth £0.40 - or twice your investment. The 80p was paid back by the film studio who got 20p of cash.
Greedy? Yes - but who gained?
The studios = yes. The introducers = yes (30% commissions). The above firms = yes. The investors - yes, they doubled their money without worrying about the success of the film.
So who lost? British taxpayers. I would estimate that the tax relief claimed for these schemes is north of £10bn. The amount paid out and now irrecoverable is perhaps £3bn. The amount in dispute and being chased by HMRC perhaps £5bn. (Around £2bn was never paid out and claims have been abandoned).
Also losers are British studios and film workers. A different system of relief replaced these schemes but it's worth perhaps a quarter of what it was. Fewer films made in the UK since 2005 when HMRC changed the rules - see below - and as we have now seen even the big franchise "British" films like Bond are going overseas.
In 2005 HMRC "changed the interpretation" of the rules. They claimed that all relief claimed to then and not paid out was now subject to that new interpretation. The new rule basically stopped all claims and we saw a dozen or more cases go to Tribunal. They are still going some two decades later. To those of us used to tax law being tax law and changed only when Parliament said so, suddenly be subject a change in policy by HMRC (unelected)- unannounced - was a shock.
The introducers and facilitators and agencies such as those above, did one of two things.
Either they closed their doors immediately and the owners disappeared with millions in fees. Or they told investors (the players) that this was "all routine", "will be challenged", "don't worry your money is safe". Some of these firms are still saying that - Ingenious in particular.
All the time HMRC was tightening the noose and putting these firms AND THE INVESTORS on notice that they wanted the tax (which in many cases HMRC had actually paid in cash and now wanted back) and interest and probably penalties.
I have seen HMRC claim that somebody who put up £50k of cash in 2001 now owes them, tax + interest + penalties, around £250k.
Can an ex player afford that sort of multiple? Probably not.
Should the player have seen this coming? Probably not as they were sheltered by agents who were lying to them and too busy to care or to be blunt just did not - and still do not - understand this process.
Should HMRC have been more honest and open and admitted that they were very late to the party? Absolutely.
So nobody comes out of this well.
I'm often asked who is to blame and the answer is everybody above.
Should we feel sorry for players? Well, if players had a decent education, some awareness that investments and tax relief can reduce or be denied, had avenues to better investments provided by clubs (who frankly were missing in this whole process which is shocking) , then we should not feel sorry.
If however none of the above was present (and it was not), are the players victims of a financial scam which in part at least was created by HMRC?
This is my day job and I've learned that making moral judgements is pointless. Some players were duped. Some knew what was going on. Each story is different. |
| Forum
Reply | Tax Avoidance Schemes
at 11:30 2 Sep 2025
This is my work area and I've helped a lot of people, including footballers, who were involved in some of these schemes.
I'll explain more later but suffice to say that the majority of them are in a bind because they listened to the wrong people. |
| | saint901
|
Site Scores| Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 0 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.