That would be true if Baker REALLY cared about this community. In fact he hates us (not just BHAFC but common people in general). The club going bust would, he thinks, solve a problem for him. Naturally he'd be full of sympathy but in his black heart he'd be grimly satisfied.balloonboy said:
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Albion report £891,000 losses and face £347,000 tax bill from sale of Goldstone
- Thread starter The Large One
- Start date
Dandyman
In London village.
or put another way we are still getting screwed by Archole. 
Capital gains can, as has been suggested, only be offset against capital losses, i.e. the sale of chargeable assets (not day to day business losses)
The tax bill has arisen as follows (all figures estimated)
£'000
Sale proceeds of Goldstone site 7,600
Less: Value at 31 March 1982
(when CGT effectively began) (1,400)
Less: Allowance for inflation between March
1982 and May 1997 (when Goldstone sold) (1,200)
Taxable gain 5,000
If the club re-invests some of this money in a new asset (such as Withdean, or ideally Falmer) within 3 years of the disposal date they can claim something called rollover relief (which many think is what you get in a massage parlour). The club have spent about £3.5 million on Withdean and bits and pieces relating to Falmer that are allowable for tax purposes. Rollover relief reduces the tax bill
This leaves a taxable gain of about £1.5 million that is not available for rollover relief. Tax this at 20% and you get a tax bill of £300,000
If Prescott approves Falmer then the Albion may me able to persuade the Inland Revenue that they have special circumstances due to the Public Inquiry, and be able to claim further rollover relief. The fact that the club are now providing for the tax bill in the accounts is because the auditors believe that there is a greater than 50% chance of the tax relief not being available.
This is because
a) They do not think the Inland Revenue will give the club any further dispensation
OR
b)There is a greater than 50% chance of Falmer being rejected .....which is very worrying
The tax bill has arisen as follows (all figures estimated)
£'000
Sale proceeds of Goldstone site 7,600
Less: Value at 31 March 1982
(when CGT effectively began) (1,400)
Less: Allowance for inflation between March
1982 and May 1997 (when Goldstone sold) (1,200)
Taxable gain 5,000
If the club re-invests some of this money in a new asset (such as Withdean, or ideally Falmer) within 3 years of the disposal date they can claim something called rollover relief (which many think is what you get in a massage parlour). The club have spent about £3.5 million on Withdean and bits and pieces relating to Falmer that are allowable for tax purposes. Rollover relief reduces the tax bill
This leaves a taxable gain of about £1.5 million that is not available for rollover relief. Tax this at 20% and you get a tax bill of £300,000
If Prescott approves Falmer then the Albion may me able to persuade the Inland Revenue that they have special circumstances due to the Public Inquiry, and be able to claim further rollover relief. The fact that the club are now providing for the tax bill in the accounts is because the auditors believe that there is a greater than 50% chance of the tax relief not being available.
This is because
a) They do not think the Inland Revenue will give the club any further dispensation
OR
b)There is a greater than 50% chance of Falmer being rejected .....which is very worrying
Last edited:
Seagull over NZ
Well-known member
I would imagine that this provision has been long debated betwen the Albion and the auditors and perhaps why they have taken their full 10 months to file their accounts.
Presumably if Falmer had got the go ahead before now, they may have been able to use some of the costs incurred to date on Falmer as capital costs and therefore offset against the gain through the rollover relief.
But becuase there is still uncertainty over Falmer, they can't reasonably say that cost is a realisable asset and hence these costs get written off and the tax is provided for.
I'm not sure it tells us any more about the Falmer decision but they ran out of time to get the accounts filed so had to make a decision. If Falmer does then get the go ahead, and the time has not run out, we could see these provisions reversed in the current financial year I would guess.
Presumably if Falmer had got the go ahead before now, they may have been able to use some of the costs incurred to date on Falmer as capital costs and therefore offset against the gain through the rollover relief.
But becuase there is still uncertainty over Falmer, they can't reasonably say that cost is a realisable asset and hence these costs get written off and the tax is provided for.
I'm not sure it tells us any more about the Falmer decision but they ran out of time to get the accounts filed so had to make a decision. If Falmer does then get the go ahead, and the time has not run out, we could see these provisions reversed in the current financial year I would guess.
Publius Ovidius
Well-known member
I don't necessarily agree that "Baker hates BHAFC". His stand on building on ANOB is well documented and his opposition to anything that he sees as a bott on the landscape , ie the A27 Beddingham/Firle/Polgate bypass is also well supported by the bvast majority of East Sussex voters who elected him.
As I said before, we must not judge people as bad just because they disagree with our views.
I think reading between the lines in the Argus article that we are restating the fact that without Falmer we are F****d. What is the more galling bit about the sale of the Goldstione ( lets face it something had to be done - selling Beeney to Leeds just saved our bacon - although the way the sale by Archer was done was appauling) is the fact that only a few weeks later the ground was sold on to developers for a figure in the region of £22m when we only got £7m for it. If there was not some underhand trickery going on there then, then my name Shirley.
DK and the current board have done a tremendous job and continue to do so. I stated on Harty's phone-in that we would struggle in divi 1 as we could not afford to go up under the present circumstances. I still hold that view. DK/MP told us that the ITV Digital monies didn't matter as we were financially sound....how does that statement sit with the figures published?
As I said before, we must not judge people as bad just because they disagree with our views.
I think reading between the lines in the Argus article that we are restating the fact that without Falmer we are F****d. What is the more galling bit about the sale of the Goldstione ( lets face it something had to be done - selling Beeney to Leeds just saved our bacon - although the way the sale by Archer was done was appauling) is the fact that only a few weeks later the ground was sold on to developers for a figure in the region of £22m when we only got £7m for it. If there was not some underhand trickery going on there then, then my name Shirley.
DK and the current board have done a tremendous job and continue to do so. I stated on Harty's phone-in that we would struggle in divi 1 as we could not afford to go up under the present circumstances. I still hold that view. DK/MP told us that the ITV Digital monies didn't matter as we were financially sound....how does that statement sit with the figures published?
Seagull over NZ
Well-known member
If the bit someone stated above that we don't receive a decent share of the play off money is correct that is an outrage.
Surely we would receive a nice chunk of at least the TV money, if not the gate receipts.
Surely we would receive a nice chunk of at least the TV money, if not the gate receipts.
Reading Posh
Sophisticated rhetorician
Seagull over NZ said:
I take it it's only an outrage this season because Brighton will be in the play-offs?
Seagull over NZ
Well-known member
Reading Posh said:
Nope - always an outrage - why should any club not involved in the play offs benefit from others doing well? Doesn't happen in the FA Cupm so why the play offs?
Reading Posh
Sophisticated rhetorician
Clubs appearing in the play-off finals definitely take a large slice of the revenues, Posh showed a profit after both their appearances - but I don't know if that was gate or tv receipts.
I assume the play-offs DO work like the FA Cup in that a percentage of every game is paid into a "pot" for distribution to all clubs in the division?
I assume the play-offs DO work like the FA Cup in that a percentage of every game is paid into a "pot" for distribution to all clubs in the division?
The Large One
Who's Next?
- Thread starter
- #70
dave the gaffer said:
They probably made that statement that because of the way the club is run (i.e. they are not going to put it into hock, aside from directors' loans), that they could still run it as a going concern. i.e. all of the accounting and budgeting they had done did not include ITV money. That cash was only ever going to be a bonus.
This episode goes to show that the club is now attaining somewhere near maximum income, and this can only be increased by prices going up - and we saw what a stink that created when people were criticising the club BEFORE they had announced the new season ticket prices, irrespective of the fact that season ticket renewals price didn't change.
Do we ever need Falmer, and quick?
Last edited:
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
I think what DK meant was that, unlike some other clubs, the Albion hadn't speculated and committed to spending the ITV money before it was actually received. The rug was pulled from under the feet of the clubs who paid out x amount in transfer fee's and committed x amount to wages on the basis of monies they were expecting from ITV, which then never materialised.dave the gaffer said:
Obviously the ITV fiasco didn't help, but once again, we are indebted to the wisdom of the board for not overcommitting the club and leaving us well and truley in the shit.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Beat me to it TLO.
Publius Ovidius
Well-known member
Yeah I agree with that point.
BTW I didn't realise how expensive home prices were. I have just forked out £44 for two tickets for the playoff home game.
I hope we havn't lost 5-0 away from home and there is nothing on the game!!!
BTW I didn't realise how expensive home prices were. I have just forked out £44 for two tickets for the playoff home game.
I hope we havn't lost 5-0 away from home and there is nothing on the game!!!
Dover
Home at Last.
From an uneducated eye, the only way to reverse the loss is from selling players. And I strongly suspect these would come from the youth team.
Granny Goodchild
New member
- Sep 24, 2003
- 68
El Presidente said:
Not quite true El P.
The statement in last year's accounts said:
"CONTINGENT LIABILITIES
The disposal of the Goldstone Ground in 1995 gave rise to a gain resulting in a corporation tax liability of about £250,000. The company has made a claim to roll over the gain against the costs to be incurred in building the new stadium. It is therefore considered that a provision for the tax is not required in these financial statements, but the liability would crystallise if the proposed development should ultimately fail."
... note the claim was to roll-over relief against the new stadium, not the costs of Withdean. The Withdean costs are actually being capitalised in the accounts and depreciated over the period that the club has an agreement to occupy Withdean, and are appearing as an "Operating Loss".
(Can't see why the £250k has become £347k!)
Ironically, the club have nearly £14 million of “trading losses” brought forward, but can’t offset them against the CGT
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,499
At least this has served as a timely reminder of just what a TURD Mr Archer was (and no doubt still is).
Anyone still got the former Chief Executive's e-mail address?Perhaps we should e-mail the article to Cllr Bellotti with a little (polite of course) note. Just to let him know that what he did to our club will *never* be forgotten.
It's a real shame we missed the opportunity to pay him a visit when we were at Bristol City recently.
Anyone still got the former Chief Executive's e-mail address?Perhaps we should e-mail the article to Cllr Bellotti with a little (polite of course) note. Just to let him know that what he did to our club will *never* be forgotten.
It's a real shame we missed the opportunity to pay him a visit when we were at Bristol City recently.
Seagull over NZ
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,499
Remember, keep it courteous folks, Mr Bellotti was always a little sensitive to jokes/insults/death threats.
