danoafc Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 It's not being sold, the land is being developed by the club in partnership with a developer. Which I'd assume is all on Brassbank's accounts, being that they own the land. Surely then any costs related to a failed redevelopment plan of the land and facilities should be acounted for in the same way? I apologise if I'm being thick, this is just how it looks to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 It doesn't matter to supporters which pot it came from. They own both (TTA) so they can do as they please. It stinks of :censored: but a lot of things around the club do lately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Had a bit of a nosey on google. Apparently AFC Wimbledon have the club and ground in seperate companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
help_shiny Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Had a bit of a nosey on google. Apparently AFC Wimbledon have the club and ground in seperate companies. Will their trust boot themselves out in a few years, distance themselves from the club and then try to build whatever they can on the ground. Do AFC Wimbledon have the interests of AFC Wimbledon at heart? Yes. Do the three people involved with Latics having their ground stolen have the best interests of the club at heart? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Well this is all fine and dandy D_S.......again....to spell out this point YET AGAIN......I'm sure all these facts and figures are nicely totting up a balance sheet somewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong, but not on OAFC's balance sheet tho....yet this £550k fee has landed on it.... Any answer for that? I only have a record of what was said at the Forum. I don't have answers, but I would suggest YET AGAIN sending questions to SC or AH, as they have repeatedly offered to deal with any queries from supporters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 I don't think it actually makes a difference Dan. If we are thinking about the day when TTA pull out of the whole shooting match, how much of whatever they take of any available cash is up to them whatever pot they take it from. When they go they will either write off the football clubs debts or not do, if they don't then I doubt half a million here or there on the debt would make any odds I agree with you. I'm not a forensic accountant but if in general circumstances Person A helps Person B off a tax bill by having the tax on their account as they get a better rate then Person A is probably in a load of trouble. I don't know what the tax situation is but having Brassbank's debts on our tax bill is looking extremely dodgy and might land us deeper in the mire than would have done when the owners have enough and pull the plug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daznathe Posted October 13, 2010 Author Share Posted October 13, 2010 I agree with you. I'm not a forensic accountant but if in general circumstances Person A helps Person B off a tax bill by having the tax on their account as they get a better rate then Person A is probably in a load of trouble. I don't know what the tax situation is but having Brassbank's debts on our tax bill is looking extremely dodgy and might land us deeper in the mire than would have done when the owners have enough and pull the plug. nah it wont be somethin like that because tta personally would be in the ship surely? i dont think they are daft enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpmarko Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 (edited) It's fine looking at the books of OAFC...problem is, OAFC don't own Boundary Park or the land around it so looking through OAFC's accounts tells us very little of the whole story...the story about land sale money going towards the then-redevelopment/now-new stadium. The accounts do tell us we've a big hefty bill of £550k though for it. Are you sure that Latics do not own Boundary Park (the stadium, that is)? The problem is that it is worth naff all anyway. PS. Apologies for off-topicness Edited October 14, 2010 by bpmarko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 Will their trust boot themselves out in a few years, distance themselves from the club and then try to build whatever they can on the ground. Do AFC Wimbledon have the interests of AFC Wimbledon at heart? Yes. Do the three people involved with Latics having their ground stolen have the best interests of the club at heart? No. Do you definitely know that then do you? Please present the facts I’m sure we would all like to here. Whats that, you have no evidence whatsoever, how surprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 Are you sure that Latics do not own Boundary Park (the stadium, that is)? The problem is that it is worth naff all anyway. PS. Apologies for off-topicness I think this was confirmed to Leeslover & Latics & England when they viewed the clubs accounts, that OAFC 2004 Ltd do not own the land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
help_shiny Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 Do you definitely know that then do you? Please present the facts I’m sure we would all like to here. Whats that, you have no evidence whatsoever, how surprising. ahh right, I never realised you had to have a watertight legal case to post an opinion on here. Where is your proof that they're doing well by us? Please present the facts. I think you're deluded to think that the club is foremost in their minds and you think I'm deluded - let us sit back and see. As personal opinions, no matter how strongly felt, are no longer to be posted here without the smoking gun of proof I say let's adjourn back here when it's all plain to see. When shall we say? It could be a quite long drawn out death so I'm not sure if we should say 2011,2012, 2013 or 2014 when we're playing at Stalybridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 I agree with you. I'm not a forensic accountant but if in general circumstances Person A helps Person B off a tax bill by having the tax on their account as they get a better rate then Person A is probably in a load of trouble. I don't know what the tax situation is but having Brassbank's debts on our tax bill is looking extremely dodgy and might land us deeper in the mire than would have done when the owners have enough and pull the plug. It’s quite normal for businesses to have property companies separate to operating companies. One thing is that it may reduce Capital Gains Tax when the land is sold off, though I have no clue how that works (I’m a VAT not a CGT specialist). Normally though, as long as there is a business reason for doing something (rather than just avoiding tax) then HMRC will be ok with it. However if the main reason for doing something is to avoid tax, they have a lot of Anti Avoidance Legislation which they can hit you with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpmarko Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 I think this was confirmed to Leeslover & Latics & England when they viewed the clubs accounts, that OAFC 2004 Ltd do not own the land. It's not the land that I'm referring to, but the stadium which is a totally different entity. Just as many people own their own home but pay (mainly nominal) ground rent because they do not own the land it is built upon, so I figure is the same in Latics' case. Someone else owns the land, but the club owns the stadium, and hence is responsible for its maintenance, upkeep, and any redevelopment costs. I have see nothing anywhere to dispute this version of how things stand, but maybe someone else can clarify? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 It’s quite normal for businesses to have property companies separate to operating companies. One thing is that it may reduce Capital Gains Tax when the land is sold off, though I have no clue how that works (I’m a VAT not a CGT specialist). Normally though, as long as there is a business reason for doing something (rather than just avoiding tax) then HMRC will be ok with it. However if the main reason for doing something is to avoid tax, they have a lot of Anti Avoidance Legislation which they can hit you with. Thanks, that gives me the detail I had no idea about. I still say doing this in whatever circumstances sounds dodgy, but it obviously isn't always technically so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 You know what. The more I read on here the more I hope Corney and Blitz just pull the plug altogether and get out with whatever they can, selling the ground and putting the club out of business with no hope of a rescuing buyer. It's exactly what a frightening number of you deserve. And seeing as I really couldn't give a toss whether the club lives or dies any more it'd be no skin off my nose either. It's a :censored:hole backward club in a :censored:hole backward town - neither of which deserve to survive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 ahh right, I never realised you had to have a watertight legal case to post an opinion on here. Where is your proof that they're doing well by us? Please present the facts. I think you're deluded to think that the club is foremost in their minds and you think I'm deluded - let us sit back and see. As personal opinions, no matter how strongly felt, are no longer to be posted here without the smoking gun of proof I say let's adjourn back here when it's all plain to see. When shall we say? It could be a quite long drawn out death so I'm not sure if we should say 2011,2012, 2013 or 2014 when we're playing at Stalybridge. I am not trying to say that they are doing best by us and I recognise that for all I know they could be screwing the club. However, just because they could be doesn’t mean that they are and making accusations isn’t the same as asking questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 2011,2012, 2013 or 2014 when we're playing at Stalybridge. What ? will Vegas be in the Champ then ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 (edited) It's not the land that I'm referring to, but the stadium which is a totally different entity. Just as many people own their own home but pay (mainly nominal) ground rent because they do not own the land it is built upon, so I figure is the same in Latics' case. Someone else owns the land, but the club owns the stadium, and hence is responsible for its maintenance, upkeep, and any redevelopment costs. I have see nothing anywhere to dispute this version of how things stand, but maybe someone else can clarify? I get you, the capital asset built on that land being different to the land owner. Edited October 14, 2010 by jimsleftfoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 You know what. The more I read on here the more I hope Corney and Blitz just pull the plug altogether and get out with whatever they can, selling the ground and putting the club out of business with no hope of a rescuing buyer. It's exactly what a frightening number of you deserve. And seeing as I really couldn't give a toss whether the club lives or dies any more it'd be no skin off my nose either. It's a :censored:hole backward club in a :censored:hole backward town - neither of which deserve to survive. Huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 Blaze of effin' glory Garcon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
help_shiny Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 What ? will Vegas be in the Champ then ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveoafc Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 You know what. The more I read on here the more I hope Corney and Blitz just pull the plug altogether and get out with whatever they can, selling the ground and putting the club out of business with no hope of a rescuing buyer. It's exactly what a frightening number of you deserve. And seeing as I really couldn't give a toss whether the club lives or dies any more it'd be no skin off my nose either. It's a :censored:hole backward club in a :censored:hole backward town - neither of which deserve to survive. But you do seem to retain an interest in our ' :censored:hole backward club ' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 (edited) You know what. The more I read on here the more I hope Corney and Blitz just pull the plug altogether and get out with whatever they can, selling the ground and putting the club out of business with no hope of a rescuing buyer. It's exactly what a frightening number of you deserve. And seeing as I really couldn't give a toss whether the club lives or dies any more it'd be no skin off my nose either. It's a :censored:hole backward club in a :censored:hole backward town - neither of which deserve to survive. Seeing as you couldn't give a toss anymore then... off out of this debate then eh!!! Some of us DO GIVE A TOSS!!! Edited October 14, 2010 by Zorrro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 But you do seem to retain an interest in our ' :censored:hole backward club ' I have done for a while since I last went, hence loitering on here, but sadly that interest seems to have all but fizzled out. The real test will be how I react when the really hits the fan (if only that were more literal in some cases...). Seeing as you couldn't give a toss anymore then... off out of this debate then eh!!! Some of us DO GIVE A TOSS!!! I thought you'd be the first! You care more about -stirring on here than you do about the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_bro Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 It’s quite normal for businesses to have property companies separate to operating companies. One thing is that it may reduce Capital Gains Tax when the land is sold off, though I have no clue how that works (I’m a VAT not a CGT specialist). Normally though, as long as there is a business reason for doing something (rather than just avoiding tax) then HMRC will be ok with it. However if the main reason for doing something is to avoid tax, they have a lot of Anti Avoidance Legislation which they can hit you with. Surely it would be better CGT wise if the £550,000 was on Brassbanks accounts. Any profit made selling the land would be reduced by that amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.