Watt transfer : "Fraude"

sam3110 said:

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.

PragueAddick said:

kentred2 said:

colin1961 said:

Covered End said:

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

Henry Irving said:

stonemuse said:

colin1961 said:

Covered End said:

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'm with stonemuse on this.

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.

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!

SomervilleAddick said:

I'm with stonemuse on this.

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.

PragueAddick said:

stonemuse said:

kentred2 said:

mogodon said:

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.

Now we see why we didn't get Bulet...

Heard he was saying see yuh later to every one this week been sold for, hang on two million, oh well easy come and all that..

sammy391 said:

fenny said:

Heard he was saying see yuh later to every one this week been sold for, hang on two million, oh well easy come and all that..

other than the fact that the transfer window isn't open , and he cant leave for anywhere (after Thursday) until January...

...and the fact that no one in their right mind would pay £2m for him !