Profit & Sustainability Rules Change

I'm not sure I would classify this as "windfall profit" - but any tax charge could depend on whether it was claimed as a deduction for tax purposes in the accounts.

Penalties are not normally allowable for tax purposes - unless it was claimed as being incurred "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of trade" - this is the general rule for all business expenses being claimed- unless you are an MP (see - floating duck islands, etc)

So Eddie's parking ticket outside the takeaway cannot be claimed as a business expense.

However, it could be argued that this penalty WAS incurred for the purposes of trade - monies were spent with the intent of gaining promotion, strengthening the squad, etc.

If it were claimed as a tax deduction, then there will be an adjustment in the next set of accounts - and AFCB will be expected to pay tax on the balance "refunded".

I got to be honest ..you don’t come across as very punk rock .
 
I'm certain that just like Derby they use separate companies to pay players a portion of their wages. It wees in the face on rules on shared ownership but gets around FFP rules, so thinking that Derby without parachute payments have been so competitive for so long the Champs you know there's money coming from somewhere
I'm not sure I would classify this as "windfall profit" - but any tax charge could depend on whether it was claimed as a deduction for tax purposes in the accounts.

Penalties are not normally allowable for tax purposes - unless it was claimed as being incurred "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of trade" - this is the general rule for all business expenses being claimed- unless you are an MP (see - floating duck islands, etc)

So Eddie's parking ticket outside the takeaway cannot be claimed as a business expense.

However, it could be argued that this penalty WAS incurred for the purposes of trade - monies were spent with the intent of gaining promotion, strengthening the squad, etc.

If it were claimed as a tax deduction, then there will be an adjustment in the next set of accounts - and AFCB will be expected to pay tax on the balance "refunded".
Unless the club manges to spend it spend it in the year that it is adjusted?
 
Unless the club manges to spend it spend it in the year that it is adjusted?

In simple terms:

Income - expenses allowable for tax = profit to be taxed.

If the penalty had been claimed, then the refunded element will reduce the expenses allowable - so it will increase the tax liability.

Spending it would leave the club in the same net tax position as if the whole of the penalty had been allowable - but the club will not benefit from any tax adjustment
 
Hahaha, got a little sketch running round my head now where the punk rock part is merely relative to the accoucant part. "I wouldn't say I'm a Macc Lads fan, I have got a few clients in Alderley Edge though"

"All things are relative - cousins everywhere" - Stiff Little Fingers

As I mention on another thread, I am considering changing my name on here to "Punk Rock Accountancy Ornithology Cherry" - although it is a bit unwieldy!!
 
QPR have reached an agreement to settle their Financial Fair Play dispute with the Football League.

An arbitral panel on the 19 October 2017 dismissed Queens Park Rangers (‘QPR’) claim that the English Football League’s 2012 Financial Fair Play Rules (‘FFP Rules’) were unlawful under Competition Law and also found that the fine of £41.965m for failing to comply with the Rules was not disproportionate.

QPR lodged an appeal against the decision and the appeal was due to be heard in London on the 2 July 2018 before a new panel.

Following extensive discussions between the parties, the Appeal has been withdrawn and the dispute settled on the following terms:
 
Any club they now try and fine through FFP will delay as long as possible, take it to court, and will expect a 60% reduction in their original fine.
 
As I see it they were "punished" to the sum of 41.965m exactly.

17.0m fine
3m costs
So that's 20m right there.
And then a further 21.965m capitalisation of loans.

So they end up being punished to the tune of 41.965m, just not all as a cash fine.
 
So capitalizing the loans means taking the clubs debt to the directors and effectively making it an investment into the club. i.e. moving a liability into shares?
 
Thats correct. The only way the directors can get their money back now is by selling the shares to some gullible fool who thinks he can make QPR great again !!!
 
Does spending 80 million with not much offset endanger Bournemouth per this rule. Not really sure how it works.
 
I doubt it, we turn a profit from commercial stuff like club shop, merch and shirt/matchday sponsors, plus we got about 112million in prize money last year, likely to go up by about another 20 million next year

edit: also I think the Mansion deal runs out this summer, so hopefully we can attract a more lucrative shirt sponsor. I imagine most of the bigger clubs are getting more for the sleeve logo than we get for the whole shirt
 
  • Like
Reactions: OBX
Does spending 80 million with not much offset endanger Bournemouth per this rule. Not really sure how it works.
Er no. Our net spend is still amongst the lowest in the PL, as is the wage bill. Finishing mid-table in the PL gives us a far greater income than sides with bigger stadiums.

Apologies if I’m wrong but I detect an agitator from Burnley or Brighton!
 

;