The EFL are a joke!

DiscoCAFC said:

https://www.efl.com/news/2018/april/efl-statement-accrington-stanley/?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

Not only they choose to not improve the standard of refereeing, the ownership situation or any other important matters but they choose to prioritise stupid stuff like this.

EFL’s had the cheek to mention ‘EFL Regulation 61.6 states bonuses have to be written into players' contracts and must be declared before the season starts’ So what if the Accrington Stanley chairman buys the players burgers whether it is out of the contract or not? It’s a treat, if I’m in a job and my manager buys me a meal once a week out of goodness do I expect it to be part of my contract if my manager decides not to buy a meal..of course not!

Who ate they etc and so on?

Yeah this is obviously dumb. But I'm guessing it's something where they have to enforce this due to labor laws and also to avoid potential corruption. As in, you need bonuses stipulated in contracts to prevent an abuse of the system (let alone rewarding players for, say, throwing a game). I know here with stuff like that there's usually a minimum of like $20 or more, don't know if that's the case in this situation. That would certainly be sensible, and may or may not be something within the EFL's control. But if you're drawing a line at McDonald's, where does that line end? What if the club offers you milk in your tea even though it isn't strictly a dietary necessity.

That said they obviously could have said that in the statement, which I kind of skimmed but didn't see. And yes there are clearly bigger problems.

.

Agree its stupid but hmrc will be interested too.

Its the way of the world.

Is it connected to the rule that says wages must not exceed a certain percentage of revenues?

The real question is, why on earth would anyone by a professional sportsman a McDonalds?

T_C_E said:

eaststandmike said:

But once again if the chairman had not been gobbing off on social media he would not have been found out.

Why do people want to share everything they do with the world.

You alright Hun?
Text me. xx

Dm in ur inbox xx

Accrington Stanley owner Andy Holt can continue to buy players burgers but the League Two leaders have been "reminded of their responsibilities" around bonuses by the English Football League.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43669872

Redrobo said:

Paid in cash so should have been subjected to both tax and NIC. Plus of course employers NIC.

The owner can call it what he likes, but is a performance bonus.

Normally yes. But the club is the employer; the chairman is just a private individual. He can buy his mates whatever he likes, surely?

cafcfan said:

Redrobo said:

Paid in cash so should have been subjected to both tax and NIC. Plus of course employers NIC.

The owner can call it what he likes, but is a performance bonus.

Normally yes. But the club is the employer; the chairman is just a private individual. He can buy his mates whatever he likes, surely?

But a Chairman is not just a private individual; and he did not buy them anything. He gave them money based on the result.

How much we don’t know from the article, but it is the principle. £3.50 meal deal ok? £100 and treat your wife and kids? Chelsea players £5000 for a night out?

Redrobo said:

cafcfan said:

Redrobo said:

Paid in cash so should have been subjected to both tax and NIC. Plus of course employers NIC.

The owner can call it what he likes, but is a performance bonus.

Normally yes. But the club is the employer; the chairman is just a private individual. He can buy his mates whatever he likes, surely?

But a Chairman is not just a private individual; and he did not buy them anything. He gave them money based on the result.

How much we don’t know from the article, but it is the principle. £3.50 meal deal ok? £100 and treat your wife and kids? Chelsea players £5000 for a night out?

I agree there has to be a limit and the principle of the matter does count here, but surely there should be some sort of minimum threshold? Like I work with the Government here and for some things there's a $20 maximum of what you can give to a Government employee as a "gift" (these are not laws that apply to Trump appointees). But that minimum means that when we have clients from the Government to our offices, we don't have to like tabulate if they have a soda, or some coffee from our coffee maker, and then they put cream in the coffee and that's technically an extra expense. I think you get the point.

I guess an entire team's worth or McDonald's is more expensive than $20. I have to confess I wasn't thinking about it as an aggregate, but as an individual sum to each player. I don't know how it would be treated for legal or tax purposes.

stevexreeve said:

Chairman has already paid tax on the money he has earned (Supposedly). So he can give it as gifts to whoever he wants - unless he dies within 7 years in which case it will be subject to inheritance tax?

Nice argument. So if I pay a plumber to fix a leak, it is OK for him to not pay tax as I have already paid tax on it.

eaststandmike said:

T_C_E said:

eaststandmike said:

But once again if the chairman had not been gobbing off on social media he would not have been found out.

Why do people want to share everything they do with the world.

You alright Hun?
Text me. xx

I have text you twice but nothing.....you think more of those stupid dogs than you do of me!!

I think more of next doors dog than I think of you! Consider yourself dumped.

Wankers, investigating this bullshit but incapable of dealing with rotten owners

Sometimes I think the speed the world moves at these days and wonder how people find time to be proactive and stay on top of the constant shifting sands

Then some twonk decides the order of the day is to investigate a bloke who made a remark about buying his players fast food after a win. And I realise the world is chock full of stuff I don't like