Farhad Moshiri

7+ Years On... Your Verdict On Farhad Moshiri

  • Pleased

    Votes: 107 7.7%

  • Disappointed

    Votes: 1,290 92.3%
  • Total voters
    1,397
ToffeeTim said:
I think your sums are out mate. If it's profit on disposal of 68 then tax at 13.6, then it will be profit after tax of just under 55m.

But it depends if we have losses in other streams of income current year too, so we might be able to offset our player trading disposal profits against other commercial trade losses. With TV money massively up i would imagine however this is unlikely.

We're also gonna get money in on Snivelley who should have no book value, but will presumably take a bit of a loss on Niasse which can offset a little bit of the profit. Mosh needs to sort out the structure and pump some of his other conglomerate's group relief into the club lol
Click to expand...
No mate - was pointing out the tax charge had to be taken off the proceeds, so 13.6 mil in tax assuming that there were no tax losses left to be offset, which is an oversimplification granted. So was pointing out that the cash available to spend figure is 80mil less tax.
Probably didn't explain it well enough

Also was specific to the Rom situation.
 
ToffeeTim said:
I think your sums are out mate. If it's profit on disposal of 68 then tax at 13.6, then it will be profit after tax of just under 55m.

But it depends if we have losses in other streams of income current year too, so we might be able to offset our player trading disposal profits against other commercial trade losses. With TV money massively up i would imagine however this is unlikely.

We're also gonna get money in on Snivelley who should have no book value, but will presumably take a bit of a loss on Niasse which can offset a little bit of the profit. Mosh needs to sort out the structure and pump some of his other conglomerate's group relief into the club lol
Click to expand...
Interestingly, if the rumoured 10 mil is got for Niasse, we make a small profit on him - incredible!!!!
 
hibbo'sclass said:
No mate - was pointing out the tax charge had to be taken off the proceeds, so 13.6 mil in tax assuming that there were no tax losses left to be offset, which is an oversimplification granted. So was pointing out that the cash available to spend figure is 80mil less tax.
Probably didn't explain it well enough
Click to expand...

Ah yeah I get you, I'm a bit slow on it tonight.

Maybe Kenwright's inactivity for years including the 2 and a half year period we didn't spend a single fee on a player was all just a cunning tax planning mechanism so we'd have so many tax brought forward losses that the Mosh would come on board and not pay tax for years lol
 

bluestevon said:
Do you pay tax on buying and selling players mate? Isn't what your buying the employment contract, it's not slavery ;)
Click to expand...

He won't go for £80 million but using that figure by the time you deduct his amortised value then 5% of the transfer fee goes to the player ,unless he has put in a transfer request. Another 5% goes to what's called the central fund and then there is vat.
Add in what is still owed to Chelsea and of course there remains the possibility that there is a sell on clause and then that huge number reduces at a pace when you deduct the agents fees that figure just got a whole lot lower
 

terraloon said:
He won't go for £80 million but using that figure by the time you deduct his amortised value then 5% of the transfer fee goes to the player ,unless he has put in a transfer request. Another 5% goes to what's called the central fund and then there is vat.
Add in what is still owed to Chelsea and of course there remains the possibility that there is a sell on clause and then that huge number reduces at a pace when you deduct the agents fees that figure just got a whole lot lower
Click to expand...
No sell on clause Jake cohen a sports lawyer who works for chelsea confirmed this a year or so ago
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top