The Manchester United Club Thread

[fez]

This is getting into what is legal vs what should be legal. United are a UK based football club with a massive chunk of their revenue and therefore their value coming from that fact. The sale of the club should be taxed in the UK and the tax revenue should remain in the UK.

The fact the company that bought the club is based in the Camens is just proof positive that its all a BS game for these people to avoid paying tax where they should.

One of my personal bugbears. Blaming the system instead of the individual for tax avoidance. Pay your ******* taxes.

 

[turbot1984]

Ratcliffes bid is in too.

Is that Jim 'I dodged paying HMRC £4bn in tax' Ratcliffe or a different one?

 

[BaZ87]

This is getting into what is legal vs what should be legal.

No it's not. You've just listened to a journalist who knows **** all about anything let alone finance and wrongly believed that the Glazers will walk away with £xbn tax free. You pay your taxes where you're registered to pay them. Man Utd pay their taxes in the UK because they're a UK company (not registered in the Caymans as that halfwit claimed), the company that owns Utd will be subject to whatever taxes they have in the Caymans (they don't have corporation tax in this instance) and the Glazer family will be taxed in the US on whatever they draw from their Cayman company.

You cannot make a non UK business or individual pay tax in the UK because it suits you.

 

[fez]

No it's not. You've just listened to a journalist who knows **** all about anything let alone finance and wrongly believed that the Glazers will walk away with £xbn tax free. You pay your taxes where you're registered to pay them. Man Utd pay their taxes in the UK because they're a UK company (not registered in the Caymans as that halfwit claimed), the company that owns Utd will be subject to whatever taxes they have in the Caymans (they don't have corporation tax in this instance) and the Glazer family will be taxed in the US on whatever they draw from their Cayman company.

You cannot make a non UK business or individual pay tax in the UK because it suits you.

Of course it is. I haven't said they are walking away tax free. My issue is with the fundamental way companies and their owners can avoid paying the tax they should on the sale of assets that are based in a particular country.

Why should they be able to make billions from the sale of a UK company and not pay tax on that profits of that sale in the UK?

 

[BaZ87]

Of course it is. I haven't said they are walking away tax free. My issue is with the fundamental way companies and their owners can avoid paying the tax they should on the sale of assets that are based in a particular country.

Why should they be able to make billions from the sale of a UK company and not pay tax on that profits of that sale in the UK?

You quoted an idiot journalist claiming they were walking away tax free and incorrectly claiming Utd are registered in the Caymans What was it that 'boiled your ****' if not those two incorrect statements?

And answering your question because they've not made the profit in the UK. You pay tax on where the value was created and you've incorrectly assumed this was created in the UK. Red Football Holding (or whatever it's called) is a company owned by an American family in the Cayman's - it was ultimately their (whether you like this or not) running of Utd that has led to Utd's value today and therefore the profit their Cayman company is due to make. The value was created in the Cayman's by an American family, not in the UK.

 

[fez]

You quoted an idiot journalist claiming they were walking away tax free and incorrectly claiming Utd are registered in the Caymans What was it that 'boiled your ****' if not those two incorrect statements?

Thats be pedantic. The effective rate of tax they pay on the sale will be tiny. What boils my **** is that they have mismanaged the club I support for over last 15 years after saddling the club with huge amount of debt and now they are going to walk away with billions in profit.

And answering your question because they've not made the profit in the UK. You pay tax on where the value was created and you've incorrectly assumed this was created in the UK. Red Football Holding (or whatever it's called) is a company owned by an American family in the Cayman's - it was ultimately their (whether you like this or not) running of Utd that has led to Utd's value today and therefore the profit their Cayman company is due to make. The value was created in the Cayman's by an American family, not in the UK.

How on earth was the value not created in the UK. If I live in France and register my company in the Caymens and do 95% of my business in the UK then most of that value is created in the UK.

As to their running of United leading to the current valuation thats complete rubbish and I think you know that. They have presided over a period where we have gone from easily the biggest club in the country to a has been on the pitch. As to revenues and valuation, thats largely a side-effect of the astronomical growth of football and the PL during the time they have owned the club. I don't think anyone with a straight face would say that the Glazers have done anything but hold United back.

A well run United would be worth far more than we are and we wouldn't have had 10+ years of crap on the pitch.

Owning a company while it grows doesn't mean you are running it well, just that you aren't doing badly enough to wreck it or market conditions are so good that you can't lose.

 

[BaZ87]

Thats be pedantic. The effective rate of tax they pay on the sale will be tiny. .....


How on earth was the value not created in the UK. If I live in France and register my company in the Caymens and do 95% of my business in the UK then most of that value is created in the UK......

There's nothing pedantic about it You quoted a video in which a terrible journalist spouted absolute nonsense and then expressed your displeasure about said nonsense. Pointing out that he was talking utter *******s is not being pedantic. And you say the effective rate of tax will be tiny but you have no idea if that is true. The only thing we can say with certainty is that Red Football Holding won't pay any corporation tax as there is no corporation tax in the Cayman's however corporation tax is by far the lesser of the two taxes the Glazers will pay. For example, if you had a company that made x and you paid corporation tax on that profit and then withdrew the balance and paid income tax on that, you'd only pay a fraction more in tax than if you paid 0 corporation tax and paid income tax on the full amount.

And you're conflating the revenues that Utd create in the UK with the value the Glazers create through their ownership. Now you might not like the Glazers ownership (which covers the rest of your posts) but it was their ownership and their decisions that have left Utd in the position they are and their ownership and those decisions have been made in the Cayman's, not Manchester.

What you're trying to argue is what your Google's of this world used to do (and kind of still do but that's a whole different conversation and very complicated) where they were physically selling advertising in the UK and then trying to bank the profits elsewhere. That doesn't apply here. All the business Man Utd do is taxed in the UK.

 

[fez]

There's nothing pedantic about it You quoted a video in which a terrible journalist spouted absolute nonsense and then expressed your displeasure about said nonsense. Pointing out that he was talking utter *******s is not being pedantic. And you say the effective rate of tax will be tiny but you have no idea if that is true. The only thing we can say with certainty is that Red Football Holding won't pay any corporation tax as there is no corporation tax in the Cayman's however corporation tax is by far the lesser of the two taxes the Glazers will pay. For example, if you had a company that made x and you paid corporation tax on that profit and then withdrew the balance and paid income tax on that, you'd only pay a fraction more in tax than if you paid 0 corporation tax and paid income tax on the full amount.

The tax rate they will pay will be tiny because they are billionaires and thats what billionaires do. They make sure that they pay as little tax as possible and there are endless loopholes for people with their resources. As to him spouting absolute nonsense it was a 20s second clip. I'm not referring to the whole video. The only bit that was off was the distinction between the company that own United vs United themselves. No? The tax rate they will pay is up for debate but I don't think its at all silly to say it will be very small.

And you're conflating the revenues that Utd create in the UK with the value the Glazers create through their ownership. Now you might not like the Glazers ownership (which covers the rest of your posts) but it was their ownership and their decisions that have left Utd in the position they are and their ownership and those decisions have been made in the Cayman's, not Manchester.

Owning a company doesn't mean you are creating value. Creating value implies that the decision you have made had positively impacted the value of the company outside of what it would would be worth. If a company would have been far better off without you then you are not adding value. The only way United would we worth less now is if we had absolutely dire owners. The Glazers have not even come close to hitting par for the grown of United.

Did the glazers create value when TV rights for the PL went through the roof?

As I said, I am not arguing that they are doing anything illegal, I am arguing that it shouldn't work like this. It doesn't make sense.

 

[BaZ87]

The tax rate they will pay will be tiny because they are billionaires and thats what billionaires do. They make sure that they pay as little tax as possible and there are endless loopholes for people with their resources. As to him spouting absolute nonsense it was a 20s second clip. I'm not referring to the whole video. The only bit that was off was the distinction between the company that own United vs United themselves. No? The tax rate they will pay is up for debate but I don't think its at all silly to say it will be very small.



Owning a company doesn't mean you are creating value. Creating value implies that the decision you have made had positively impacted the value of the company outside of what it would would be worth. If a company would have been far better off without you then you are not adding value. The only way United would we worth less now is if we had absolutely dire owners. The Glazers have not even come close to hitting par for the grown of United.

Did the glazers create value when TV rights for the PL went through the roof?

As I said, I am not arguing that they are doing anything illegal, I am arguing that it shouldn't work like this. It doesn't make sense.

You're making a sweeping generalisation, combined with massive guess work re the tax the Glazer kids will pay. I agree they will make sure they pay as little as possible however I strongly suspect it will be a substantial amount. And I didn't watch the whole video, I couldn't bring myself to watch more than a few seconds of that idiot speaking however in those few seconds pretty much every word he said was wrong.

And again, you may not like the Glazers and the way they run the club and you may believe that it would be worth more with different owners who made different decisions but you cannot create tax laws around guess work. It's a literal point - through their ownership, they have grown Utd's value from x to y. That didn't happen in Manchester. Selling tickets, signing up sponsors and tv revenue was created in Manchester however and that is taxed in the UK.

And I know you're not arguing that it's illegal but tax is far far more complicated than you're making it out to be. For every complaint like yours, if tax laws were different and the Glazers (and everybody else) had to pay tax in instances like this in the country the asset was owned, you'd have just as many complaints from people claiming they should have paid the tax where the operation was based and where the decisions that created the value were made.

 

[turbot1984]

I'm with @fez on this. Our government has failed miserably on promises to 'clean up' tax havens. The Cayman Islands promised full financial transparency by this year and **** all has happened, the British Virgin Islands just told them to sod off, it wants full secrecy. EU has them on its blacklist.

 

[fez]

And again, you may not like the Glazers and the way they run the club and you may believe that it would be worth more with different owners who made different decisions but you cannot create tax laws around guess work. It's a literal point - through their ownership, they have grown Utd's value from x to y. That didn't happen in Manchester. Selling tickets, signing up sponsors and tv revenue was created in Manchester however and that is taxed in the UK.

I'm not arguing that we should create tax laws around guess work. I'm suggesting that when you sell a UK company you should pay tax in the UK and that having a holding company in the Caymens who owns it shouldn't come into it. The very fact that the company is in the Caymens tells you exactly what they are trying to do. Avoid tax.

And I know you're not arguing that it's illegal but tax is far far more complicated than you're making it out to be. For every complaint like yours, if tax laws were different and the Glazers (and everybody else) had to pay tax in instances like this in the country the asset was owned, you'd have just as many complaints from people claiming they should have paid the tax where the operation was based and where the decisions that created the value were made.

I know tax law is fantastically complex. It also favours the rich. The effective rate of tax that the super wealthy pay should tell you that. And no it will never be perfect or treat everyone fairly but we should be trying our rank best to make it fairer and less open to abuse.

 

[BaZ87]

I'm not arguing that we should create tax laws around guess work. I'm suggesting that when you sell a UK company you should pay tax in the UK

And as I said, for everybody saying this you'll have as many people arguing the opposite. This is why we have tax laws around where the value is created and whether you like it or not, the value of Red Football Holding has not been created in the UK.

 

[fez]

And as I said, for everybody saying this you'll have as many people arguing the opposite. This is why we have tax laws around where the value is created and whether you like it or not, the value of Red Football Holding has not been created in the UK.

Well I don't like it baz, I don't like it one bit. I would probably feel less strongly if they deserved even a tiny fraction of the money they will make.

 

[BaZ87]

Well I don't like it baz, I don't like it one bit. I would probably feel less strongly if they deserved even a tiny fraction of the money they will make.

As I said, tax is so ****ing complicated and you will never have laws perfectly right or fair however without the laws that are in place it will only make things 10x more complicated and open up more opportunities for abuse. And if you tried to change these laws you will cause as many problems as you solve.

The one thing you should take from this is to never, ever, pay attention to Kaveh Solhekol. Even if he wishes you a happy birthday on your birthday, check your birth certificate to be sure that it is.

 

[adam cool dude]

As I said, tax is so ****ing complicated and you will never have laws perfectly right or fair however without the laws that are in place it will only make things 10x more complicated and open up more opportunities for abuse. And if you tried to change these laws you will cause as many problems as you solve.

The one thing you should take from this is to never, ever, pay attention to Kaveh Solhekol. Even if he wishes you a happy birthday on your birthday, check your birth certificate to be sure that it is.

If there is a definition of stealing a wage it is him and that other bald headed guy. Lol

 

[Droolinggimp]

So, its known that Sir Jim (INEOS), Qatar and a US investment hedge fund Elliot (who will basically give the Glazers money to stay at Man Utd) have put in their bids. No Saudi bids made. I hope to god the US Elliot group are using this as a bargaining chip. I don't think having the Glazers stay is a good thing at all. I can't imagine the fan base would be happy either.

 

[fez]

From what little I have read about Elliot group, they are not the sort of people you want anywhere near anything you like. I think that truly could be the straw that breaks the camels back. I don't know if they would invest in United for that reason though.

 

[adam cool dude]

Id rather have Qatari's than hedge funders leaching money left, right and center. They are just as bad morally and in many ways have blood on their hands for many different reasons.

 

[Billz2023]

I personally think the Qa

From what little I have read about Elliot group, they are not the sort of people you want anywhere near anything you like. I think that truly could be the straw that breaks the camels back. I don't know if they would invest in United for that reason though.

I personally think even the Glazers aren't that stupid The Elliot Group for me is a threat if the price is not met as close as possible. The Qataris will probably stretch close to 6Billion which will be enough and they will finally sell. I don't think Sir Jim will be enough with the Qataris involved in the process when they want something they will eventually get it.

 

[fez]

I don't know that Elliott group would get involved for fear that the fanbase would basically riot. If the Glazers stayed and stuck more debt on the club there certainly would be.