There are lot of naive people out there who get fed into how they can double their money by investing into a pyramid scheme or down the local church on a Sunday morning when a ex footballer asks them to invest. It’s not just your ex Premier League players, it’s everyone in this world. You probably drink with them in the pub or meet up with them at the football.
Those footballers in that documentary last night were naive, some of them especially in the case of Rod Wallace have been defrauded with dodgy signatures. That’s wrong and the people involved in that need locking him and to start paying back what they owe for the rest of their lives
Investing into property in Florida and Spain which without making further enquires is something I’m afraid that are now regretting. Those film schemes over 25 years ago were too good to be true.
You would have to have a heart of stone, not to feel an ounce of sympathy towards them. Sean Davis came across as a broken man. Who’s to know if one of our former heroes is not one of those people out of the few hundred affected? Jason Euell was declared bankrupt in 2011 in a similar manner with regards to property (Alleged Fraud with signatures by an unknown person)
They were given shit financial advice back then and bar the fraud aspects as mentioned above, it’s difficult to prosecute.
Many moons ago when I worked in the city , loads were doing film schemes etc looking for tax “breaks” . my accountant/ financial adviser said to me ‘do you want to sleep at night or look over your shoulder for the rest of your life?’
I still don’t fucking sleep even though I took the sensible option . think the film schemes stuff worked for some but most got hit with monster tax bills further down the line . You pays your money makes your choice . Plenty of con artists about to fleece anyone who’s a bit green behind the ears .
It was an interesting programme and I found myself swaying back and forth on whether I was sympathetic or not.
Firstly, the "film schemes". Nothing wrong with investing in these, at least from the start, because it was a government backed idea to encourage investment in the UK film industry. The problem was it wasn't properly thought through/monitored and it wasn't long before people started taking the piss - schemes for proposed films that were never intended to be made, etc. At some point the government/HMRC decided (imo, rightly) enough was enough and pulled up the drawbridge and started challenging. In practice it was probably a game of musical chairs as to where you were when the music stopped and I don't really have too much sympathy for that aspect - if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.
Secondly, HMRC. I'm absolutely no fan of theirs, but I'm struggling to understand what it is they're supposed to have done wrong in the cases we saw. It seemed nobody was disputing the tax that was due, it's just that the money that should have been there to pay the tax had now gone. That's not HMRC's fault - their job is to collect the money that's due for all of our collective benefit - that's how it works. Yes, they could probably be a bit more sympathetic in their dealings with individuals, but at the end of the day it's their job to collect money - they can't be expected to be judge and jury on any number of infinite stories they will hear daily on why someone hasn't got enough money to pay - especially as nobody has been found guilty of fraud anywhere in the chain.
Then there's the "advisors". Were all the risks adequately explained? Almost certainly not. But even if they were, would they have handed over their money anyway? Maybe. Nothing ventured nothing gained, after all. When these things go well and people make money nobody is concerned about any of this stuff. But when the shit hits the fan everyone starts pointing fingers at everyone else and it's never their own fault, even partially. And something like the global financial meltdown was a massive mountain of shit hitting a US-sized fan. People lost money all over the place. That's what happens with investments - values can go down as well as up.
The big difference here is that it seems that there were some very dubious goings on in some of these specific cases - the dodgy signatures, the overvalued properties, the huge "commissions", the obvious conflicts of interest, etc. Some of it appeared to be blatantly fraudulent, rather than just an honest punt gone wrong. I feel like the programme makers missed a trick here - surely it was worth them looking into the guys behind the "scam" in a bit more detail. Did they make pot loads of cash? Did they also lose a lot when it all went Pete Tong? If they also got burnt then it might add a slightly different context, whereas if they're living like kings while their "clients" go bankrupt one-by-one, that would tell it's own story.
On a human level. Someone needed to get an arm around Sean Davis and tell him it will all be OK. They were some painful scenes to watch.
The next big financial scandal will be Equity Release to hit ordinary people.
The Financial advisers who are “selling “ this scheme are little short of crooks.
The fees charged are outrageous, and commission also are eye watering.
My FiL fell foul of a FA, and £90k released ended up £34k. In the bank and a debt of £110k when he passed less than 18 months later.
The family was kept in the dark, because we could have covered his outgoings and not saddled with this huge debt.
Sorry but did you mean ’could cover’ not ’could have covered’ because this changes the meaning. If it’s as you wrote how can they be ’in the dark’ still? Or do I misunderstand completely?
The next big financial scandal will be Equity Release to hit ordinary people.
The Financial advisers who are “selling “ this scheme are little short of crooks.
The fees charged are outrageous, and commission also are eye watering.
My FiL fell foul of a FA, and £90k released ended up £34k. In the bank and a debt of £110k when he passed less than 18 months later.
The family was kept in the dark, because we could have covered his outgoings and not saddled with this huge debt.
Sorry but did you mean ’could cover’ not ’could have covered’ because this changes the meaning. If it’s as you wrote how can they be ’in the dark’ still? Or do I misunderstand completely?
I read it as they could have covered his outgoings if they'd known at the time, so there was no need for him to go down the equity release route. But he did it without telling anyone and as it is there's now a huge debt.
The next big financial scandal will be Equity Release to hit ordinary people.
The Financial advisers who are “selling “ this scheme are little short of crooks.
The fees charged are outrageous, and commission also are eye watering.
My FiL fell foul of a FA, and £90k released ended up £34k. In the bank and a debt of £110k when he passed less than 18 months later.
The family was kept in the dark, because we could have covered his outgoings and not saddled with this huge debt.
Sorry but did you mean ’could cover’ not ’could have covered’ because this changes the meaning. If it’s as you wrote how can they be ’in the dark’ still? Or do I misunderstand completely?
I read it as they could have covered his outgoings if they'd known at the time, so there was no need for him to go down the equity release route. But he did it without telling anyone and as it is there's now a huge debt.
Ok, so his family now are not in the dark and have his debt. What an inheritance!
The next big financial scandal will be Equity Release to hit ordinary people.
The Financial advisers who are “selling “ this scheme are little short of crooks.
The fees charged are outrageous, and commission also are eye watering.
My FiL fell foul of a FA, and £90k released ended up £34k. In the bank and a debt of £110k when he passed less than 18 months later.
The family was kept in the dark, because we could have covered his outgoings and not saddled with this huge debt.
Sorry but did you mean ’could cover’ not ’could have covered’ because this changes the meaning. If it’s as you wrote how can they be ’in the dark’ still? Or do I misunderstand completely?
I read it as they could have covered his outgoings if they'd known at the time, so there was no need for him to go down the equity release route. But he did it without telling anyone and as it is there's now a huge debt.
Ok, so his family now are not in the dark and have his debt. What an inheritance!
That's IFA's for you - not to be trusted. Any old Tom, Dick or Golfie can set themselves up as one! * ;-)
Just for clarity, my FiL passed. It was only when the family began to deal with his affairs it became apparent that he had entered into the ER agreement. The family was not informed. The family could have not only provided funds to support his final few months but also we could have paid for care which was only required right at the very end.
The FA at no time tried to contact the family to explore any alternative financial arrangements.
The arrangement fees were 4k from the( ER appointed solicitor ) acting on my FiL behalf, bypassing his own solicitor who had been almost a family friend. Commission was about £2k for the FA, An outstanding mortgage had to be satisfied, which had an early redemption fee on top of the capital sum.
Once again the solicitor (ER appointed) paid him self another £2.5k to sort out.
I caught the end of the programme and I can only assume that those posters above being nasty about these players are either heartless or didn’t watch the programme. If it’s the former than you’re all far worse people than Danny Murphy has ever been.
What I don’t understand however is how anyone who has more than a hundred thousand to invest, does so in one investment plan. ’Spread your bets’ ’Don’t put all your eggs in one basket' You’ve only had to just hear one of these expressions to know better. I myself feel that I was a bit scammed by a company that persuaded me after Brexit that their fund was better than having pension plans left in the UK. After 8 years it’s performed badly and the fees are extortionate so I’m going to have to, at cost, move it again. I would never have put everything I have into it, however good it sounded at the time. These guys are losing their homes! Why on earth did they put everything into this investment? They had millions to spread out.
Well, if you will take financial advice from your brother.
That's a joke, I'm sure Golfie's professional advice is sound.
I caught the end of the programme and I can only assume that those posters above being nasty about these players are either heartless or didn’t watch the programme. If it’s the former than you’re all far worse people than Danny Murphy has ever been.
What I don’t understand however is how anyone who has more than a hundred thousand to invest, does so in one investment plan. ’Spread your bets’ ’Don’t put all your eggs in one basket' You’ve only had to just hear one of these expressions to know better. I myself feel that I was a bit scammed by a company that persuaded me after Brexit that their fund was better than having pension plans left in the UK. After 8 years it’s performed badly and the fees are extortionate so I’m going to have to, at cost, move it again. I would never have put everything I have into it, however good it sounded at the time. These guys are losing their homes! Why on earth did they put everything into this investment? They had millions to spread out.
Well, if you will take financial advice from your brother.
That's a joke, I'm sure Golfie's professional advice is sound.
.... as long as you don't live north of the Blackwall Tunnel and want a meeting in the morning ........
There are lot of naive people out there who get fed into how they can double their money by investing into a pyramid scheme or down the local church on a Sunday morning when a ex footballer asks them to invest. It’s not just your ex Premier League players, it’s everyone in this world. You probably drink with them in the pub or meet up with them at the football.
Those footballers in that documentary last night were naive, some of them especially in the case of Rod Wallace have been defrauded with dodgy signatures. That’s wrong and the people involved in that need locking him and to start paying back what they owe for the rest of their lives
Investing into property in Florida and Spain which without making further enquires is something I’m afraid that are now regretting. Those film schemes over 25 years ago were too good to be true.
You would have to have a heart of stone, not to feel an ounce of sympathy towards them. Sean Davis came across as a broken man. Who’s to know if one of our former heroes is not one of those people out of the few hundred affected? Jason Euell was declared bankrupt in 2011 in a similar manner with regards to property (Alleged Fraud with signatures by an unknown person)
They were given shit financial advice back then and bar the fraud aspects as mentioned above, it’s difficult to prosecute.
You make some interesting, thought-provoking and valid points.
Especially that everyone can be impacted by dubious financial schemes. I think individuals who have had no previous experience of dealing with relatively large sums of money are particularly at risk. Sacked workers suddenly in receipt of a large lump sum in redundancy are often prime targets for dodgy schemes. I remember a lot of mineworkers got turned over back in the day. Some, literally, handed their new-found wealth over to some bloke they had just met down the pub. They were actually relieved (at least initially), to no longer have the responsibility of looking after so much money.
I also know of one former England International footballer (No, I'm not naming him) who just had a mountain of money languishing in his building society account and was begging his agent to take it off his hands and do something with it.
The next big financial scandal will be Equity Release to hit ordinary people.
The Financial advisers who are “selling “ this scheme are little short of crooks.
The fees charged are outrageous, and commission also are eye watering.
My FiL fell foul of a FA, and £90k released ended up £34k. In the bank and a debt of £110k when he passed less than 18 months later.
The family was kept in the dark, because we could have covered his outgoings and not saddled with this huge debt.
Equity Release is a completely different ball game & is strongly regulated. All advisers giving advice in this area are told to involve the family when giving advice to elderly clients looking to release equity. Some elderly clients refuse to have a 3rd party at these meetings as they feel that they are being "babied" and cant be trusted to make their own decisions.
I wont go any further into ER here as I dont want yo detail this specific thread, but feel free to join the Savings & Investments thread & post on there.
Found it a very hard watch especially Sean Davis, and also Brian Deane when he said this pain will only go away when I am dead. Yes they were naive but their lives were football and they put their trust in absolute con men, and Howard Wilkinson certainly doesn't come out of it looking good.
Watched most of the programme, feel very sorry for a lot of them, whilst they were clearly advised badly, a lot of the issues seems to stem from the film tax avoidance schemes which came back to bite them, then due to the other poor investments the money is not there to satisfy HMRC.
had they of used the film schemes to avoid tax and then invested that money wisely there’s have been no issues.
that said, it certainly feels like some were conned, falsifying signatures……
clubs should make sure all young players when they first sign a contract get true, independent, financial advice.
If you aren't used to having lots of money, why not just pay off your mortgage and stick the rest in a bank on long term deposit and in a pension? The exams that need passing to become a qualified football agent should (i don't know if they do) include advising players on the basics with regards to their money. Anybody who invests in an overseas property scheme must have some inkling that its more risky than putting it in a bank surely? On a different note, i've found the solution for the European asylum seeker and immigration problems - the world should agree that they are to be re housed in Switzerland - a country that didn't get involved in WW1 and 2 but has a fantastic standard of living, facilities etc etc off the back of facilitating tax avoidance. Its payback time - nice and convenient location and got the money to pay for it.
Think it is harsh any digs being made at them. We always hear footballers are one injury away from the end of their career. And how many players do you hear who have blown their money on booze, or drugs or both. Or lived lavishly then cant make ends meet.
They dont get sympathy, but looking at ways to invest your money to protect your future? They tried to do the sensible thing and were misadvised IMO. Harsh to think otherwise.
Just for clarity, my FiL passed. It was only when the family began to deal with his affairs it became apparent that he had entered into the ER agreement. The family was not informed. The family could have not only provided funds to support his final few months but also we could have paid for care which was only required right at the very end.
The FA at no time tried to contact the family to explore any alternative financial arrangements.
The arrangement fees were 4k from the( ER appointed solicitor ) acting on my FiL behalf, bypassing his own solicitor who had been almost a family friend. Commission was about £2k for the FA, An outstanding mortgage had to be satisfied, which had an early redemption fee on top of the capital sum.
Once again the solicitor (ER appointed) paid him self another £2.5k to sort out.
That's outrageous but not surprising. My mother nearly entered into an equity release scheme shortly after my dad died. Obviously she wasn't in a good frame of mind and thought it would be nice idea to pay off my sisters and my mortgages with the cash from her house equity. I don't think she knew if this was even possible to do without complicating hers and ours finances tax wise or whatever. My mother didn't know what my sister and I owed on our respective loans so she could in no way make an informed decision. As it turned out neither of us owed a great deal so there was no real need for my mum to take this course but the salesman/ financial advisor told her he didn't normally recommend equity release but the scheme he had was a good one and something to seriously consider. In the cold light of day she saw it was nothing short of a scam but these people hit people off guard, so I do have a bit of sympathy for people who get blindsided into various schemes, even men like Danny (expensive watch) Murphy. Anyway fast forward a few years, the cash from my mums property, (which me and my sister sold), came in very handy. It paid for 2 years care home fees @ £1800/week, before she died earlier this year, solicitors also had couple of sizeable bites out of her before and after she died. Where there's money there's always someone looking for an opportunity to get at it.
Watched most of the programme, feel very sorry for a lot of them, whilst they were clearly advised badly, a lot of the issues seems to stem from the film tax avoidance schemes which came back to bite them, then due to the other poor investments the money is not there to satisfy HMRC.
had they of used the film schemes to avoid tax and then invested that money wisely there’s have been no issues.
that said, it certainly feels like some were conned, falsifying signatures……
clubs should make sure all young players when they first sign a contract get true, independent, financial advice.
Yes, financial education (for everyone) is key.
But according to the Schroders Advisers Surveys, only 25% of IFAs will take on a client with less than £50k to invest. That obviously would exclude most first-year professional footballers. It's of note too, I think, that we all see people like Golfie as a typical IFA. Whereas in fact around close to 50% of advisers work for companies employing more than 50 such advisers. (And what happens if a football club ends up recommending someone that turns out to be a rogue adviser?)
Finally, how many of us even know that the moneyhelper.org.uk web site which is Government backed and provides (basic) free advice even exists?
For example. As I saw it if they invested £1 million into the movie/film making industry. The Government deemed this to be a tax beneficial investment. So they got £400,000 tax rebate, on what they had paid when the £1 million went through their pay packets.
The Investment company, told them the films would make money. The Investment Directors took the £400,000 tax rebates and invested it in property developments. They were told these were exclusive and luxury developments. Where as they were bad developments in bad locations. An indicator was paying £610,000 for an apartment valued at £290,000.
I believe that the tax had to be repaid in 15years irrespective of whether a profit was made. So when the films bombed they lost their £1 million. An then the £400,000 property investment failed and they lost their Tax rebate money.
HMRC then called in the Tax money, and they couldn’t pay. Hence lost all their money and were hounded for payments by HMRC.
As no criminal convictions could be made against the Directors of the investment company. It’s deemed they legally owe HMRC the money.
The sayings all eggs in one basket, and if it looks to good to be true apply,
They were naive and greedy and failed to question the advice being given. But, also were lied to and undoubtedly scammed.
For example. As I saw it if they invested £1 million into the movie/film making industry. The Government deemed this to be a tax beneficial investment. So they got £400,000 tax rebate, on what they had paid when the £1 million went through their pay packets.
The Investment company, told them the films would make money. The Investment Directors took the £400,000 tax rebates and invested it in property developments. They were told these were exclusive and luxury developments. Where as they were bad developments in bad locations. An indicator was paying £610,000 for an apartment valued at £290,000.
I believe that the tax had to be repaid in 15years irrespective of whether a profit was made. So when the films bombed they lost their £1 million. An then the £400,000 property investment failed and they lost their Tax rebate money.
HMRC then called in the Tax money, and they couldn’t pay. Hence lost all their money and were hounded for payments by HMRC.
As no criminal convictions could be made against the Directors of the investment company. It’s deemed they legally owe HMRC the money.
The sayings all eggs in one basket, and if it looks to good to be true apply,
They were naive and greedy and failed to question the advice being given. But, also were lied to and undoubtedly scammed.
The benefits of the schemes weren't dependent on the films making money - most films don't make money at the level they were targeting. Instead the benefit was in getting an immediate deferred tax benefit which would need to be repaid over time, but in the meantime you used the initial cash benefit to invest in something else that would make you some money. Effectively an interest free loan. But, it turns out, it was the wrong time to be investing in dodgy over-valued properties in Florida. Add in the fact that investors would also be encouraged to take out a loan to invest even more, which also needed repaying and you end up with a fucking big mess when the property and financial markets went plop.
Live in USA…met Craig Burley the former Chelsea player for a drink just before last Xmas as he plays golf with a mate and works for ESPN here….nice guy but found out he was involved with this and owes HMRC over £400k…not sure how they will collect as he lives here and could probably just file bankruptcy in UK
Let's not forget that while they were earning all the players involved were avoiding paying income tax - so they were in effect robbing all of us. Now they expect sympathy because the investors who were advising them mis-invested their money so they cannot repay the HMRC the tax they should have paid on their income. How many of them questioned whether paying so little income tax at the time was legitimate? Difficult to have much sympathy for them.
Firstly thanks to @clive for starting this thread. Would never have noticed this otherwise. Storyville series is very low down the BBC agenda, unfortunately. Got to read some very well informed comments on here before watching it last night, which was very helpful.
As well as agreeing thoroughly with @Off_it, especially about the lack of scrutiny of the two advisers (but they probably didn't have the budget needed for that kind of thing), there were two other glaring omissions for me. Firstly the CoL policeman suddenly telling us that he left policing - and then the whole investigation collapsed - that was a "Wait, what?" moment. But there was one more important body that wasn't even mentioned. The PFA, the Players'Union. The PFA whose then chairman Gordon Taylor was trousering around £1mill pa in salary. Where were they, where are they, in this? At the very least they should be offering some financial support, as well as medical support to Sean Davies and others.
We need to remember that footballers often come from a background of limited financial knowledge and all of a sudden the are earning large sums and have no clue what to do. They are preyed upon by vultures who they think are friends. It is very sad that families who had a very limited timeframe to earn enough money to sustain their post football life have been conned and now face a life of stress and strife
We need to remember that footballers often come from a background of limited financial knowledge and all of a sudden the are earning large sums and have no clue what to do. They are preyed upon by vultures who they think are friends. It is very sad that families who had a very limited timeframe to earn enough money to sustain their post football life have been conned and now face a life of stress and strife
And this is a failure of the PFA. You can’t stop people making bad decisions, but you can at least try to educate them about the issues they’re going to face when they suddenly have more money that they are used to. Maybe it’s changed since this happened, but I know at least a couple of the pro leagues in the US provide seminars on this. I wonder whether this is something they cover in the Acadamy? Teach them while they’re young.
I dont understand all the complexities involved here but its not only dubious schemes like these that go arse upwards.How many people like me, bought saga shares at £1.85,now worth sod all,there were thousands of us,all done our money,who has that money.
Comments
Those footballers in that documentary last night were naive, some of them especially in the case of Rod Wallace have been defrauded with dodgy signatures. That’s wrong and the people involved in that need locking him and to start paying back what they owe for the rest of their lives
Investing into property in Florida and Spain which without making further enquires is something I’m afraid that are now regretting. Those film schemes over 25 years ago were too good to be true.
You would have to have a heart of stone, not to feel an ounce of sympathy towards them. Sean Davis came across as a broken man. Who’s to know if one of our former heroes is not one of those people out of the few hundred affected? Jason Euell was declared bankrupt in 2011 in a similar manner with regards to property (Alleged Fraud with signatures by an unknown person)
The family was kept in the dark, because we could have covered his outgoings and not saddled with this huge debt.
Firstly, the "film schemes". Nothing wrong with investing in these, at least from the start, because it was a government backed idea to encourage investment in the UK film industry. The problem was it wasn't properly thought through/monitored and it wasn't long before people started taking the piss - schemes for proposed films that were never intended to be made, etc. At some point the government/HMRC decided (imo, rightly) enough was enough and pulled up the drawbridge and started challenging. In practice it was probably a game of musical chairs as to where you were when the music stopped and I don't really have too much sympathy for that aspect - if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.
Secondly, HMRC. I'm absolutely no fan of theirs, but I'm struggling to understand what it is they're supposed to have done wrong in the cases we saw. It seemed nobody was disputing the tax that was due, it's just that the money that should have been there to pay the tax had now gone. That's not HMRC's fault - their job is to collect the money that's due for all of our collective benefit - that's how it works. Yes, they could probably be a bit more sympathetic in their dealings with individuals, but at the end of the day it's their job to collect money - they can't be expected to be judge and jury on any number of infinite stories they will hear daily on why someone hasn't got enough money to pay - especially as nobody has been found guilty of fraud anywhere in the chain.
Then there's the "advisors". Were all the risks adequately explained? Almost certainly not. But even if they were, would they have handed over their money anyway? Maybe. Nothing ventured nothing gained, after all. When these things go well and people make money nobody is concerned about any of this stuff. But when the shit hits the fan everyone starts pointing fingers at everyone else and it's never their own fault, even partially. And something like the global financial meltdown was a massive mountain of shit hitting a US-sized fan. People lost money all over the place. That's what happens with investments - values can go down as well as up.
The big difference here is that it seems that there were some very dubious goings on in some of these specific cases - the dodgy signatures, the overvalued properties, the huge "commissions", the obvious conflicts of interest, etc. Some of it appeared to be blatantly fraudulent, rather than just an honest punt gone wrong. I feel like the programme makers missed a trick here - surely it was worth them looking into the guys behind the "scam" in a bit more detail. Did they make pot loads of cash? Did they also lose a lot when it all went Pete Tong? If they also got burnt then it might add a slightly different context, whereas if they're living like kings while their "clients" go bankrupt one-by-one, that would tell it's own story.
On a human level. Someone needed to get an arm around Sean Davis and tell him it will all be OK. They were some painful scenes to watch.
Or do I misunderstand completely?
*edit: at the time, pre-RDR.
The arrangement fees were 4k from the( ER appointed solicitor ) acting on my FiL behalf, bypassing his own solicitor who had been almost a family friend.
Commission was about £2k for the FA,
An outstanding mortgage had to be satisfied, which had an early redemption fee on top of the capital sum.
That's a joke, I'm sure Golfie's professional advice is sound.
Especially that everyone can be impacted by dubious financial schemes. I think individuals who have had no previous experience of dealing with relatively large sums of money are particularly at risk. Sacked workers suddenly in receipt of a large lump sum in redundancy are often prime targets for dodgy schemes. I remember a lot of mineworkers got turned over back in the day. Some, literally, handed their new-found wealth over to some bloke they had just met down the pub. They were actually relieved (at least initially), to no longer have the responsibility of looking after so much money.
I also know of one former England International footballer (No, I'm not naming him) who just had a mountain of money languishing in his building society account and was begging his agent to take it off his hands and do something with it.
I wont go any further into ER here as I dont want yo detail this specific thread, but feel free to join the Savings & Investments thread & post on there.
had they of used the film schemes to avoid tax and then invested that money wisely there’s have been no issues.
that said, it certainly feels like some were conned, falsifying signatures……
clubs should make sure all young players when they first sign a contract get true, independent, financial advice.
They dont get sympathy, but looking at ways to invest your money to protect your future? They tried to do the sensible thing and were misadvised IMO. Harsh to think otherwise.
Anyway fast forward a few years, the cash from my mums property, (which me and my sister sold), came in very handy. It paid for 2 years care home fees @ £1800/week, before she died earlier this year, solicitors also had couple of sizeable bites out of her before and after she died.
Where there's money there's always someone looking for an opportunity to get at it.
But according to the Schroders Advisers Surveys, only 25% of IFAs will take on a client with less than £50k to invest. That obviously would exclude most first-year professional footballers. It's of note too, I think, that we all see people like Golfie as a typical IFA. Whereas in fact around close to 50% of advisers work for companies employing more than 50 such advisers. (And what happens if a football club ends up recommending someone that turns out to be a rogue adviser?)
Finally, how many of us even know that the moneyhelper.org.uk web site which is Government backed and provides (basic) free advice even exists?
I believe that the tax had to be repaid in 15years irrespective of whether a profit was made. So when the films bombed they lost their £1 million. An then the £400,000 property investment failed and they lost their Tax rebate money.
HMRC then called in the Tax money, and they couldn’t pay. Hence lost all their money and were hounded for payments by HMRC.
As no criminal convictions could be made against the Directors of the investment company. It’s deemed they legally owe HMRC the money.
The sayings all eggs in one basket, and if it looks to good to be true apply,
They were naive and greedy and failed to question the advice being given. But, also were lied to and undoubtedly scammed.
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/business-income-manual/bim56505
As well as agreeing thoroughly with @Off_it, especially about the lack of scrutiny of the two advisers (but they probably didn't have the budget needed for that kind of thing), there were two other glaring omissions for me. Firstly the CoL policeman suddenly telling us that he left policing - and then the whole investigation collapsed - that was a "Wait, what?" moment. But there was one more important body that wasn't even mentioned. The PFA, the Players'Union. The PFA whose then chairman Gordon Taylor was trousering around £1mill pa in salary. Where were they, where are they, in this? At the very least they should be offering some financial support, as well as medical support to Sean Davies and others.