Albion report £891,000 losses and face £347,000 tax bill from sale of Goldstone

[Sergi Gotsmanov]

Yes I meant years but with hindsight tears seems much more romantic

 

[Gully]

I am a complete novice when it comes to taxation, I struggle to complete my tax return each year but one thing occurred to me, surely to be liable for payment of CGT the Inland Revenue would need to prove that you had actually received the income for which the tax must be paid. Forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious but didn't the Albion get precisely nothing from the sale of the Goldstone or have I spent the last seven years believing we were robbed blind and in actual fact we weren't...

 

[Sergi Gotsmanov]

good point but this is the Revenue we're talking about here. They'll tax on the amount you piss given half a chance.

 

[Reading Posh]

I am a complete novice when it comes to taxation, I struggle to complete my tax return each year but one thing occurred to me, surely to be liable for payment of CGT the Inland Revenue would need to prove that you had actually received the income for which the tax must be paid. Forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious but didn't the Albion get precisely nothing from the sale of the Goldstone or have I spent the last seven years believing we were robbed blind and in actual fact we weren't...

I'll start by stating the bleedin' obvious - I don't know what went on in your murky past.

BUT - there was obviously a capital gain when the Goldstone was sold, hence the CGT liability. It's entirely possible that the directors at that time took the actual cash profit out of the business leaving the club with a future cash liability (for the CGT) in the event that the gain wasn't rolled over.

 

[El Presidente]

The Albion (or rather Foray 585 or whatever it was called) received about £7 million from the sale of the Goldstone. The money was used to apy off the clubs debts

 

[Sergi Gotsmanov]

Couldn't the liability be offset against those debts.


Stupid bloody question...If it could then we wouldn't be talking about it.

Another can of stella and bed i think.

 

[Reading Posh]

Couldn't the liability be offset against those debts.

Only in some bizarre negative accounting world, or at Leeds PLC.

 

[balloonboy]

Mr Norman Baker (statement to the public enquiry, 23 March 2003):

"In respect of Withdean, I understand that the stadium capacity there exceeds the Football League's requirements for a minimum capacity of 6,000. Having been to the stadium, it seems to me to perform well, both in itself and in terms of transport connections. I agree that it is not ideally suited, not the optimum size, but it can do the job and is certainly a better option environmentally than Falmer"

I hope Mr Baker will take a close interest in the club's latest statutory accounts, and revise his statement as appropriate.....

 

[balloonboy]

Couldn't the liability be offset against those debts.

Believe me, the club has been well-served in terms of financial expertise over the last 7 years. I don't think we will find many unturned stones in the club's quest to make ends meet and mitigate losses in what is currently an impossible situation.

 

[Zebedee]

So should we fail to get Falmer, Archer gets to screw us over again.

Perhaps the prat will do the honourable thing and pick up the bill?

 

[Gully]

I understand your point Reading, what I was trying to suggest was that the person, persons or organisation who pocketed the money from the sale should be liable for the tax as they have been the gainer.

Thanks El Pres, didn't realise that.

 

[CAFC Matt]

The play-offs will make no difference to the Albions finances as all the play-off money (after deducting expenses) goes to a central pool which is then distributed to the clubs in Division 2.

That IMO is gay :safeway2:

 

[Scoticus]

Unfortunately it's the Club, not the previous diddies who were directors, that are liable for the CGT

El Presidente, what about the sell-on from the Goldstone and the mess the accounts were in when the present board took over

I concur with all above who praise Dick Knight & the current regime for their honesty and commitment; tightrope walking & juggling at the same time has nothing on it!!

 

[Pevenseagull]

My (somewhat poor) understanding is that at a capital gain may be offset by capital losses but only over the same accounting period / against a capital loss brought forward from a previous period.

They fanny about with these things all the time so I dunno how things stood around the time of the sale of the Goldstone but I infer from the presence of the liability that the club (sic) made a healthy (SICK) profit (VERY SICK) over the period during which the gain occured so irrespective of any subsequent losses there's a liability there.

I've got a pretty good idea how much CGT you pay on a £700K payout from an investment of £53.45 - but if you're a multi-millionairre and realise it at a time when stock markets have had a fall you can probably lose all the tax.

And I'm supposed to be able to get to sleep now.

 

[BensGrandad]

I would have thought that Brighton & Hove Albion FC would have had no assets other than their players who I believe are valueless for tax purposes. The assets . profit, losses etc are bourne by the company that the directors of BHA own, I believe the company is called Brighton & Hove Leisure or similar. If this is the case, is it not that company that owes the CGT i.e Brighton & Hove Leisure and not Brighton & Hove Albion FC?

Assuming that to be the case, for which I can see no logical reason for it not to be, why is Foray 485 or any other company under which A , B & S traded not liable for the CGT. There would have been no provisions for a get out clause of time to rebuild because they never intended to rebuild or to reinvest the £7m that they received. Also if they used that money to pay off debts as has been suggested they didn't make a profit so how did they incurr CGT?

 

[Pevenseagull]

As above, I was under the impression that you can, in certain circumstancs, offset a past loss aginst a current profit but there's far less scope (none?) to offset a current loss against a past profit .

If there was an old profit there to be taxed, then when the revenue track it down you're liable - irrespective of any current losses qv rich old celebs who tried to stash some cash under the stair carpet - admittedly I've no experience of how it works when a business changes hands but I'd assume if you buy, you audit and it's caveat emptor.

 

[Pevenseagull]

Was Archer's interest not purchased with Kidger's funds, and did he not drop out a little while ago?

I relly don't want to be trying to work this out at this time of night.



The bottom line is: Dick Knight et al knew all about this and it's a non-issue or someone, somewhere has had a £347K toffee crisp

I'm happy to assumme the former

 

[Lord Bracknell]

We need a man with a bit of dosh ...

Costs and a skint chairman brreds losses galore

A man like Mo Fayed?

Look at Fulham.

The Club is owned by a company called Fulham Football Leisure. Fayed has given interest free loans to them, worth £91 million by the end of 2002/03. On top of this, Harrods have loaned them £17.6 million (at interest). There are other sums that have come to the club from Fayed interests, linked to the possible future redevelopment of Craven Cottage.

The Club is rolling in money, apparently. But how secure is its future?

Trading revenue is £33.6 million a year. Players' salaries are £36 million a year. The club is operating at a loss - about £22.2 million a year. Since Fayed took over in 1997, accumulated losses have exceeded £103 million.

Look again at the loans that Fayed and his companies have put in - enough to cover the operating losses so far. BUT HOW MUCH LONGER?

And some of the loans might be interest free. But they are repayable. What happens when the chickens come home to roost? Or if Fayed's other business interests run into trouble? Or if he gets bored? Would anyone else be interested in investing in a football club with debts in excess of £110 million and annual trading losses of £22 million?

That model of football club ownership is probably the most dangerous of all.

 

[Seagull over NZ]

My tax knowledge is a bit sketchy but I don't think that you can offset a capital gains tax liability against a trading profit. ie they can only be offset against other capital gains. Since the Albion have no significant assets that could have had a large enough loss, the liability remains.

Unfortunately its the way fo the inland revenue - the Albion can carry on making losses but it will not extinguish this liability.

The fact that they have provided for this tax means its almost certain that they will have to pay it. The fact that the details are so specific would suggest to me that they are already debating this tax with the inland revenue and have opinions from accountants on the matter etc such that it will be payable soon, may even have been paid since June 2003.

Anyone know where you can get a copy of the accounts - I assume that since they are a private company you have to pay a fee to companies house to get a copy?

 

[Brovion]

Well said Lord B, unfortunately you might as well have saved your fingers. There is a sizeable minority of fans (including quite a few posters on NSC) who think that what we need is a chairman with money. The pea-brains can't think any further than: "Chairman has money, chairman invests in club, club buys players, club wins trophies (hopefully)". The fact is that the money money vanishes but the debt always remains - unless you can find someone who just wants to GIVE the club money, but very rich people usually become very rich precisely because they don't give it away.