Independent Leyton Orient Forum

https://uk.yahoo.com/sports/news/corona ... 41941.html

i think they can well afford it.
also clubs like spurs who are already hanging out the begging bowl.

I guess if Matt Hancock is taking the moral high ground, that must mean that MPs have decided to take a pay cut. Anyone know if that is the case?

Real Al wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:25 am I guess if Matt Hancock is taking the moral high ground, that must mean that MPs have decided to take a pay cut. Anyone know if that is the case?

They have been silent in such leadership so far.

Let’s all boo the rich footballers and not worry about the colossal f*** up that is supposed to be our government.

They said no...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/20 ... sacrifice/

Professional Footballers’ Association, led by its veteran chief executive Gordon Taylor, said that it would not simply give clubs a free-hand in cutting players’ salaries or offering deferrals. Taylor, who is the voice of the PFA, said in the statement: “In instances where clubs have the resources to pay all staff, the benefit of players paying non-playing staff salaries will only serve the business of the club’s shareholders."

I agree with Taylor. it is down to the owners to pay the non-paying staff and not going cap in hand to government. Will be interesting to see what happens next.

That's a union leader looking after his members from a technical standpoint correct from a moral one highly dubious.

Especially when clubs overseas such a Barca and Juve are doing it.

RientO wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 10:18 am They said no...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/20 ... sacrifice/

Professional Footballers’ Association, led by its veteran chief executive Gordon Taylor, said that it would not simply give clubs a free-hand in cutting players’ salaries or offering deferrals. Taylor, who is the voice of the PFA, said in the statement: “In instances where clubs have the resources to pay all staff, the benefit of players paying non-playing staff salaries will only serve the business of the club’s shareholders."

I agree with Taylor. it is down to the owners to pay the non-paying staff and not going cap in hand to government. Will be interesting to see what happens next.

Agree. Whilst it would be a decent gesture from players and managers, i dont think they can be forced. Especially by a f*cking government who have been providing rich business owners loopholes to pay as little as possible for years. f*cking hypocrites.

You can guarantee that any prem club laying off staff will still have millions in the transfer kitty in the Summer.

Part of Gary Neville's defence of the premier players is that it takes longer than two weeks to put a plan together.

How many people have allowed the government that luxury?

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:18 am Part of Gary Neville's defence of the premier players is that it takes longer than two weeks to put a plan together.

How many people have allowed the government that luxury?

There's a bit of a difference there, I'm sure i dont have to explain it to you.

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:18 am Part of Gary Neville's defence of the premier players is that it takes longer than two weeks to put a plan together.

How many people have allowed the government that luxury?

It didn't take top European clubs that long............

RientO wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 10:18 am They said no...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/20 ... sacrifice/

Professional Footballers’ Association, led by its veteran chief executive Gordon Taylor, said that it would not simply give clubs a free-hand in cutting players’ salaries or offering deferrals. Taylor, who is the voice of the PFA, said in the statement: “In instances where clubs have the resources to pay all staff, the benefit of players paying non-playing staff salaries will only serve the business of the club’s shareholders."

I agree with Taylor. it is down to the owners to pay the non-paying staff and not going cap in hand to government. Will be interesting to see what happens next.

Taylor, the union boss that earns a premiership footballers wage - and have been proven to be very undemocratic. IMO he's the worst sort of union leader.

Historically, because of their short working career along with other sportsman , footballers are allowed to spread their annual earnings over their working life span up to state pension age. This inland revenue allowance was introduced at a time when footballers among other athletes earned barely more than the average working man. Nowadays bearing in mind the obscene sums they earn it is outdated.

I'd be very much happier if those top paid players continued to be paid as per their contracts, but all put a significant % of their wages into local foodbanks, shelters, etc *. At the same time, the billionaires who own those clubs should do their part by paying their non-playing staff their full wages and not claiming on the state.

That way, local charities fighting for survival benefit, the non-playing staff keep their jobs and full earnings, and the state doesn't have to subsidise super-rich businesses.

I can't see much wrong with that solution, but I'm happy to listen to arguments against.

* maybe, after seeing that football players were paying to these charities, other rich folk like Richard Branson, Mike Ashley, Tony Blair and Jacob Rees-Mogg might like to contribute a similar proportion of their wealth.

Apple Wumble wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:21 pm

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:18 am Part of Gary Neville's defence of the premier players is that it takes longer than two weeks to put a plan together.

How many people have allowed the government that luxury?

There's a bit of a difference there, I'm sure i dont have to explain it to you.

Oh go on.

LittleMate wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:25 pm

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:18 am Part of Gary Neville's defence of the premier players is that it takes longer than two weeks to put a plan together.

How many people have allowed the government that luxury?

It didn't take top European clubs that long............

Maybe they are not as thick as ours?

LittleMate wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:28 pm

RientO wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 10:18 am They said no...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/20 ... sacrifice/

Professional Footballers’ Association, led by its veteran chief executive Gordon Taylor, said that it would not simply give clubs a free-hand in cutting players’ salaries or offering deferrals. Taylor, who is the voice of the PFA, said in the statement: “In instances where clubs have the resources to pay all staff, the benefit of players paying non-playing staff salaries will only serve the business of the club’s shareholders."

I agree with Taylor. it is down to the owners to pay the non-paying staff and not going cap in hand to government. Will be interesting to see what happens next.

Taylor, the union boss that earns a premiership footballers wage - and have been proven to be very undemocratic. IMO he's the worst sort of union leader.

I would say he is probably considered the best sort by the members. I think the focus should be on the owners of the clubs rather than the managers and players.

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:42 pm

Apple Wumble wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:21 pm

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:18 am Part of Gary Neville's defence of the premier players is that it takes longer than two weeks to put a plan together.

How many people have allowed the government that luxury?

There's a bit of a difference there, I'm sure i dont have to explain it to you.

Oh go on.

If you cant tell why a government would be expected to organise just about anything quicker than football players then there is no hope.

Again, said it elsewhere but absolutely blowing my mind the amount of people calling for footballers to pay for people out of their own pocket, who are self-pronounced Corbyn haters, anti-socialist, Tory voters. So utterly lack any self-awareness.

Look forward to you all supporting closing corporation tax loop-holes in the next election in order to help people who are poor eat 7 meals a week, or increase a nurses wage so that CEOs and Directors can take out of their pocket to help the people in their companies on minimum wage.

Apple Wumble wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 1:02 pm Again, said it elsewhere but absolutely blowing my mind the amount of people calling for footballers to pay for people out of their own pocket, who are self-pronounced Corbyn haters, anti-socialist, Tory voters. So utterly lack any self-awareness.

Look forward to you all supporting closing corporation tax loop-holes in the next election in order to help people who are poor eat 7 meals a week, or increase a nurses wage so that CEOs and Directors can take out of their pocket to help the people in their companies on minimum wage.

Corporation tax represents about 8% of all tax collected. About 25% of all tax collected is Income Tax (followed by VAT 22% and National Insurance 20%). Sure close the loopholes that exist around internet and foreign based business' but if you really want more tax collected there's far more scope in making sure everybody pays their income tax. Ignore its rate, there are plenty of loopholes in that system - starting with all individuals declaring their incomes correctly and paying tax accordingly.

As for the CEO's and directors, the average pay of a FTSE 100 CEO is £5.7m - and thats inflated by half a dozen of then earning £10m plus. There are just as many - if not many more - footballers earning the average and more. FTSE directors earn more like £400 - 500k which is championship level money. The difference between the role of a company director and a footballer is that we like footballers. We forget about those tax scams they have carried out in the last 5-15 years.

Shouldn't they just do the right thing and help out their clubs admin and back room staff - without theose people theres no club, ergo the players wouldnt get anything. Sadly can't see it happening (perhaps some are?).

Apple Wumble wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 1:02 pm Again, said it elsewhere but absolutely blowing my mind the amount of people calling for footballers to pay for people out of their own pocket, who are self-pronounced Corbyn haters, anti-socialist, Tory voters. So utterly lack any self-awareness.

Look forward to you all supporting closing corporation tax loop-holes in the next election in order to help people who are poor eat 7 meals a week, or increase a nurses wage so that CEOs and Directors can take out of their pocket to help the people in their companies on minimum wage.

You are so bitter but presume you have facts, rather than fiction, about corporation tax loop holes. Also , hand on heart, have you never under declared income from all sources or paid cash to anyone for goods services etc without declaring such payments?
Fact is most tax income comes from the top 5% of those who pay tax. Why should they, or indeed anyone else, subsidise wealthy football clubs?

Winchesterfan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 7:55 pm

Apple Wumble wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 1:02 pm Again, said it elsewhere but absolutely blowing my mind the amount of people calling for footballers to pay for people out of their own pocket, who are self-pronounced Corbyn haters, anti-socialist, Tory voters. So utterly lack any self-awareness.

Look forward to you all supporting closing corporation tax loop-holes in the next election in order to help people who are poor eat 7 meals a week, or increase a nurses wage so that CEOs and Directors can take out of their pocket to help the people in their companies on minimum wage.

You are so bitter but presume you have facts, rather than fiction, about corporation tax loop holes. Also , hand on heart, have you never under declared income from all sources or paid cash to anyone for goods services etc without declaring such payments?
Fact is most tax income comes from the top 5% of those who pay tax. Why should they, or indeed anyone else, subsidise wealthy football clubs?

Are you admitting to being a tax avoider Winch? Never would have thought it.

Disappointing me old chum.

Redcard wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:38 pm Historically, because of their short working career along with other sportsman , footballers are allowed to spread their annual earnings over their working life span up to state pension age. This inland revenue allowance was introduced at a time when footballers among other athletes earned barely more than the average working man. Nowadays bearing in mind the obscene sums they earn it is outdated.

What is this allowance???

LittleMate wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 1:50 pm
Corporation tax represents about 8% of all tax collected. About 25% of all tax collected is Income Tax (followed by VAT 22% and National Insurance 20%). Sure close the loopholes that exist around internet and foreign based business' but if you really want more tax collected there's far more scope in making sure everybody pays their income tax. Ignore its rate, there are plenty of loopholes in that system - starting with all individuals declaring their incomes correctly and paying tax accordingly.

Assuming your figures are correct, seems like there’s lots of scope to increase the level of corporation tax taken. Given the top rate of corporation tax is 17%, whilst the top rate of income tax is 45%, that’s pretty obvious.

RedO wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 8:48 am

Redcard wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:38 pm Historically, because of their short working career along with other sportsman , footballers are allowed to spread their annual earnings over their working life span up to state pension age. This inland revenue allowance was introduced at a time when footballers among other athletes earned barely more than the average working man. Nowadays bearing in mind the obscene sums they earn it is outdated.

What is this allowance???

Red card I might be wrong, but I think that was scrapped sometime ago when wages exploded. You're right in what you say in that tax was calculated over a lifetime often referred as a deferred tax cost or something like that. But, when wages exploded I think HMRC did away with it.

Here's a link to a more modern approach to tax and I don't see this lifetime spread mentioned either.

https://www.taxback.com/blog/sportspeople-uk-tax