Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Fans Forum - A few points



saafend_seagull

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
14,022
BN1
and molango..isnt?!

but i suppose mcghee does know more than what he is doing than anyone else judging by what his done with the side he has got, already exceeding my expectations :clap2:
 
Last edited:




Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,832
Uffern
Yorkie said:
One note from MM about Jake Robinson. His view is that he is too inconstitent at the moment.

Yeah, one week he scores three, the next week only one. :)

Seriously, the more I hear of MM, the more impressed I am.
 




Marc

New member
Jul 6, 2003
25,267
e77 said:
Falmer:

Re-opened enquiry starts on February the 11th and can
go on for three weeks. If there is an election on May
the 11th ministers will not be allowed to make a
decision for a month before. Once the findings are
examined it may only give Prescott 10 days to make the
decision before the election, so obviously the club
will press for a decision before then.

If it doesn't happen before the election then the club
will 'examine options'. Not sure what that means !

Someone asked if we can get any money back from Lewes
Council for the appeal. Apparently not unless we
prove they did it just to delay the decision.

Also if it goes to Judicial Review, the party pushing
it will have to pay all costs.

That worries me, another lengthy delay and more money going down the drain....I can just see it being delayed because of the Election :nono:

On the last paragraph....Suppose that could be alright as where the hell are the NIMBYS gonna get that money from? LDC would'nt dare help out and waste more of their money, although could the NIMBYS ask for some European Law backing or something? (read something like that ages ago)
 


The Large One

Who's Next?
Jul 7, 2003
52,343
97.2FM
Yorkie said:
One note from MM about Jake Robinson. His view is that he is too inconstitent at the moment.
No, Yorkie - he said that McPhee was inconsistent - not Jakey.

From the earlier thread today, I did get as many questions from NSC out as possible without seeming to take over the floor. The answers are contained within e77's post.

e77: quality note-taking. Summed pretty much everything up. One thing - the inquiry re-opens on Feb 1 (not 11) and should close on Feb 19.

It has always been known that the losers of a Judicial Review foot the ENTIRE bill. If there is a Judicial Review (altyhough they didn't say it tonight) the club has said in the past that these thing are done 'very quickly' i.e. within a month.

McGhee spiel about what he has done with the playing squad was very impressive. Not only because he has taken this amount of time with the players - but because the way he explained it to us fans without treating us like unknowing idiots.

McGhee knows that the team run out of steam after about an hour - by which time he would rather see us 2 up rather than 1 up. I did leave him speechless at one point when I pointed out that in the league, every time we have scored two goals we have lost, but every time we score just one, we have won or drawn.

As for Martin Perry calling Dick "Bill", that was just hilarious.
 
Last edited:






Jam The Man

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
8,226
South East North Lancing
shame about the turnout i thought considering the amount of moans we get on this site!
 










The Auditor

New member
Sep 30, 2004
2,764
Villiers Terrace
trueblue said:
Only one thing - on the capital gains tax front, the gist of it from Martin Perry seemed to be that we are trying to hold off the tax man as long as possible because if Falmer goes ahead there won't be a capital gains tax bill to pay.

A bit like moving house I guess, rather than inheriting one.

I expect this is CGT holdover/rollover relief - there are time limits though
 




The Large One

Who's Next?
Jul 7, 2003
52,343
97.2FM
It has now been nine years - hence the Inland Revenue now getting a bit impatient. The fact that we are being held up by local authorities and central Government does help our case, but it won't forever.

Also from last night, Falmer Parish Council did try and sue / invoice the Albion for costs incurred at the first Public Inquiry. They tried to do it on the grounds that they applied for planning permission near their village. Quality. :shootself
 




Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
31,273
What about the new kit and the supply of merchandise. Any comments there?
 




The Auditor said:
Thanks to all for the above information - seems like most of the important questions got asked
Credit to The Large One ... he had a print-out of yesterday's NSC thread with the questions put by people who couldn't get to the forum.

TLO managed to ensure that most of the NSC questions got put. Although not the one from Ernest:- "Will you please stop sending me begging letters?"

http://www.northstandchat.biz/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36280
 




Dave the OAP

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
46,762
at home
From my days as being a bean counter, I remember when doing my exams on Taxation that CGT could be offset against developments funded by proceeds from sales of assets, but only used on "relevant assets"

I assume that Withdean was the the first "relevant asset", therefore why was not the CGT offset against the redevelopment of Withdean?

Secondly, there will be no CGT liability on Withdean as the costs are solely for the improvement of the stadium which is not owned by the company ( B&HA Ltd)

Does anyone know if the CGT liability ( which I was led to believe was actually over £1m not £360k) is part of the £2m shortfall we are currently donating our money to plug the gap.

dave
 






e77

Well-known member
May 23, 2004
7,270
Worthing
Lord Bracknell said:
No.

Different stereotypical crap ... hanging on the facts that Adam Virgo is Scottish and anyone called Lee must be Chinese.

Different, non stereotypical and not realy that funny !
 


Gazwag

5 millionth post poster
Mar 4, 2004
30,742
Bexhill-on-Sea
I guess the CGT cannot be rolled over into Withdean as we only rent it and maybe the re-development costs are not capitalised by the club and therefore treated as revenue expenditure.

Therefore the gain can only be "rolled over" into Falmer. There are time limits which I think will now have expired, however the Inland Revenue have the "option" to extend the time limit in exceptional cases.

I would imagine that the inquiry argument can be treated as exceptional.

However, the Inland Revenue would rather have their money now and repay it again in the future when Falmer is built.
 
Last edited:


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here