Non story, RD at the time owned both clubs, so if he negotiates a transfer between his clubs which allows the player to transfer for free that's his prerogative. If he wanted he could have had Charlton 'pay' a paltry sum of 100€ or something, but that would probably come under more scrutiny. Not much different to Lampard signing for NYCFC and then signing on loan for Man City, or Udinese, Granada and Watford's seemingly interchangeable squads.
Not similar as Lamport was a loan.
Let's say someone sells the Valley to another company that they own for £1 and that second company then sells it to a property developer for £10m.
So Watt goes from Celtic to Standard Liege for E1.5M. Then a few months later he moves to Charlton for free.
Watt joined us for 2mill .... they have to disclose the figure for insurance purposes
So Chatlton paid £2m and Standard got Zilch?
That is exactly what the Socios were asking, two weeks ago. I don't suppose, @colin1961, that you would like to make it clear why your information could be trusted? Because if it goes back to Belgium as an authoritative figure, a lot of people are going to be very interested in that.
Non story, RD at the time owned both clubs, so if he negotiates a transfer between his clubs which allows the player to transfer for free that's his prerogative. If he wanted he could have had Charlton 'pay' a paltry sum of 100€ or something, but that would probably come under more scrutiny. Not much different to Lampard signing for NYCFC and then signing on loan for Man City, or Udinese, Granada and Watford's seemingly interchangeable squads.
Not necessarily true ...this is a cross-border 'financial' transfer and will incur a tax.
So Watt goes from Celtic to Standard Liege for E1.5M. Then a few months later he moves to Charlton for free.
Watt joined us for 2mill .... they have to disclose the figure for insurance purposes
So Chatlton paid £2m and Standard got Zilch?
That is exactly what the Socios were asking, two weeks ago. I don't suppose, @colin1961, that you would like to make it clear why your information could be trusted? Because if it goes back to Belgium as an authoritative figure, a lot of people are going to be very interested in that.
His good and ever reliable source, Pluck Tit Fromhisarse
So Watt goes from Celtic to Standard Liege for E1.5M. Then a few months later he moves to Charlton for free.
Watt joined us for 2mill .... they have to disclose the figure for insurance purposes
The source of that info would be very useful
That Watt might be insured for £2m doesn't mean CAFC paid that for him.
Otherwise JBG would be insured for £0 which clearly he isn't.
Colin is what doctors call an "unreliable historian" as even when he isnt totally making stuff up he mangles and misunderstands what he is told.
Insurance value makes sense ... There has to be a tax implication here, this is not a simple balance sheet transfer once it goes cross-border.
I think the value they're insured to is more closely related to the value of their contract, as Henry says it hasn't really got anything to do with the transfer fee paid.
The owners of the club can do whatever they want with the assets. If they want to free transfer the entire SL first team, they can. People won't like it, but I don't think anyone can stop them. They could do it just to cut the wage bill.
The real question is whether this is some tax strategy. We need a striker, SL is making a profit, so have SL buy the player, taking the charge against their profits, reducing any tax due, and then bung him to us free. If we're not making a profit, there nothing on our side to offset the fee against.
From the perspective of the holding company, none of this matters to them when any profits from the operating company get rolled up.
But that's just a guess. I'm no expert in the various tax regimes in play here. Potential tax evasion would be the likeliest thing to get the authorities attention.
Folllow the strings right back to their source past KF, KM, and RD and i am pretty sure you'll find Delort's Dad tugging at them. Anyone who thinks anything else is a fool.
It does have the appearance of some journalistic kite-flying allied to a new regime trying to show how awful the old owner was (as if everyone was unaware ...)
Or it could be scratching the surface.
If nothing else there may be tax implications for moving an 'asset' (player) around the network without regulatory care.
This was certainly an issue when I worked for a multinational and we always had to be very careful with internal transfer of costs, expenses, income etc.
I'm starting to wonder whether Staprix NV has an "active" P&L. I mean, that we know the clubs are reporting their books as separate entities. So the assumption has been that Staprix is just a holding where the consolidated profits are sent. But suppose it is more active than that? If it has employees, including players. Or at least coaches, such as Luzon. That seems to be what the article is suggesting.
We didn't sever our contacts with the Socios and the journalist, BTW.(we mentioned this at the meet on Thurs , @stonemuse ) The Socios have been in touch about Tony Watt, but of course we had nothing concrete we could tell them, beyond the joke about "undisclosed" fees. Definitely need to keep ourselves informed about what's going on there, and what info emerges.
I'll just remind you that Charlton did not employ Katrien Meire in 2013/14, which is an established fact from the various UK company accounts. That may have changed since, she may have been on the Standard Liege payroll while working at Charlton - or she may have been paid via Staprix.
There was a similar situation in the 1980s when Robert Maxwell owned Oxford Utd and Reading when Dean Saunders was 'Transferred' from Reading to Oxford. Does anyone remember how that saga ended?
I mean specifically to that transfer, not yachts and pension funds!
With Two Shats cadaver found floating around the Canary Islands?
The owners of the club can do whatever they want with the assets. If they want to free transfer the entire SL first team, they can. People won't like it, but I don't think anyone can stop them. They could do it just to cut the wage bill.
The real question is whether this is some tax strategy. We need a striker, SL is making a profit, so have SL buy the player, taking the charge against their profits, reducing any tax due, and then bung him to us free. If we're not making a profit, there nothing on our side to offset the fee against.
From the perspective of the holding company, none of this matters to them when any profits from the operating company get rolled up.
But that's just a guess. I'm no expert in the various tax regimes in play here. Potential tax evasion would be the likeliest thing to get the authorities attention.
Companies can trade at whatever price they like. But for tax purposes any transaction between connected persons would, in the accounts, be shown at market value, ignoring what the cash movement was.
So RD can honestly say he paid £1.5 (it's in his business accounts) and SL can honestly say they didn't receive £1.5m, (it's not in their bank account.). Doesn't mean he's allowed to screw SL as Henry says.
Accounting numbers and real numbers can differ, its easy to use accounts figure if it suits your purpose to hide a cash transaction figure.
It does have the appearance of some journalistic kite-flying allied to a new regime trying to show how awful the old owner was (as if everyone was unaware ...)
Or it could be scratching the surface.
If nothing else there may be tax implications for moving an 'asset' (player) around the network without regulatory care.
This was certainly an issue when I worked for a multinational and we always had to be very careful with internal transfer of costs, expenses, income etc.
I'm starting to wonder whether Staprix NV has an "active" P&L. I mean, that we know the clubs are reporting their books as separate entities. So the assumption has been that Staprix is just a holding where the consolidated profits are sent. But suppose it is more active than that? If it has employees, including players. Or at least coaches, such as Luzon. That seems to be what the article is suggesting.
We didn't sever our contacts with the Socios and the journalist, BTW.(we mentioned this at the meet on Thurs , @stonemuse ) The Socios have been in touch about Tony Watt, but of course we had nothing concrete we could tell them, beyond the joke about "undisclosed" fees. Definitely need to keep ourselves informed about what's going on there, and what info emerges.
I've always assumed this was the case. I also wonder if it's in the new contracts and or contract offers to our players. It would explain Riga, Luzon and Fraeye. It could also be what Diego Poyet was hinting at when there were rumours he was asked to play for Standard Liege and all his 'I'll tell the truth one day' speak.
Non story, RD at the time owned both clubs, so if he negotiates a transfer between his clubs which allows the player to transfer for free that's his prerogative. If he wanted he could have had Charlton 'pay' a paltry sum of 100€ or something, but that would probably come under more scrutiny. Not much different to Lampard signing for NYCFC and then signing on loan for Man City, or Udinese, Granada and Watford's seemingly interchangeable squads.
Not similar as Lamport was a loan.
Let's say someone sells the Valley to another company that they own for £1 and that second company then sells it to a property developer for £10m.
Might be legal, might not but it wouldn't be OK.
Ask Wrexham and Brighton fans.
You would be evading Stamp Duty via a sale at undervalue which would make it illegal. I imagine the value of a football player is somewhat more difficult to prove/establish unless you had turned down a raft of higher offers at the same time.
I don’t pretend to understand the technicalities of this cloudy issue, but according to Wiki, Roland pleaded for economic and political transparency in his book. (The date that he made a U turn on this idea remains undisclosed).
Comments
Let's say someone sells the Valley to another company that they own for £1 and that second company then sells it to a property developer for £10m.
Might be legal, might not but it wouldn't be OK.
Ask Wrexham and Brighton fans.
Otherwise JBG would be insured for £0 which clearly he isn't.
Colin is what doctors call an "unreliable historian" as even when he isnt totally making stuff up he mangles and misunderstands what he is told.
The owners of the club can do whatever they want with the assets. If they want to free transfer the entire SL first team, they can. People won't like it, but I don't think anyone can stop them. They could do it just to cut the wage bill.
The real question is whether this is some tax strategy. We need a striker, SL is making a profit, so have SL buy the player, taking the charge against their profits, reducing any tax due, and then bung him to us free. If we're not making a profit, there nothing on our side to offset the fee against.
From the perspective of the holding company, none of this matters to them when any profits from the operating company get rolled up.
But that's just a guess. I'm no expert in the various tax regimes in play here. Potential tax evasion would be the likeliest thing to get the authorities attention.
So RD can honestly say he paid £1.5 (it's in his business accounts) and SL can honestly say they didn't receive £1.5m, (it's not in their bank account.). Doesn't mean he's allowed to screw SL as Henry says.
Accounting numbers and real numbers can differ, its easy to use accounts figure if it suits your purpose to hide a cash transaction figure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Duchâtelet