Stoke show RFC how to run a Real Football Club

[Svlad Cjelli]

we also broke our transfer records every year from 05-08 until we went down.

ooo wow

STOKE > Us

No shit, Sherlock. You're really going out on a limb saying that a club with an income of £50M is in a better position to buy expensive players than one with an income a tenth of that!

[brendywendy]

we also broke our transfer records every year from 05-08 until we went down.

ooo wow

STOKE > Us

ha ha

brilliant

[Rob-Royal]

just for the RTG's - top 4 now

[brendywendy]

good god man.

[Rick_Dangerous]

The same Stoke commonly referred to as Sjoke? Alright that may have been in relation to the Icelanders but hells bells man!

[RoyalBlue]

we also broke our transfer records every year from 05-08 until we went down.

ooo wow

STOKE > Us

No shit, Sherlock. You're really going out on a limb saying that a club with an income of £50M is in a better position to buy expensive players than one with an income a tenth of that!

No shit, Sherlock. A club that invests reasonable and sensible amounts a little while back and remained in the PL now have an income of £50M!

[Rob-Royal]

good god man.

yep, all 3!

[Svlad Cjelli]

From today's Guardian, one of the reasons Stoke is able to throw money at football is because of a tax dodge by Bet365 :

Stoke City's manager Tony Pulis frequently plays the underdog card. But as his team stand just one place off a Champions League berth and have put Tottenham Hotspur out of the Carling Cup, it is time to debunk the myth.

In the 2009-10 season, the most recent for which accounts are available, Stoke's turnover was £58.98m, the Premier League's 14th highest. Yet Stoke are afforded many luxuries unavailable to their peers, thanks to being a subsidiary of an organisation with a turnover of £5.4bn a year. Stoke belong to bet365, and in the 2009-10 season were given a parent-company subsidy of £15.42m, serving as bet365's tax write-off – the company has been applauded, however, for keeping its entire betting operation in the UK, whereas most of its competitors' online and telephone-betting departments are offshore to avoid all tax.

It means Pulis was able to invest £20.58m, net, in new players in 2009-10 as the Potters spent £12.2m more than they earned that season, making their total subsidised expenditure £71.2m. Indeed, Stoke's parent-company structure gives them another great advantage: access to interest-free finance. That season Stoke's bank debt was a negligible £175,000, costing them £6,000 in interest fees. Everton, by contrast, must foot an annual interest bill of close to £4.5m – equivalent to two players earning £43,000 a week.

The available figures are dated, but there are no signs that bet365's investment has abated. Over the year to May 2010 Stoke's wage bill was a relatively modest £45m. But, in addition to another round of net transfer investment exceeding £20m last summer (and a few millions more in the previous one), salary costs have been swelled by the arrivals of well-paid players such as the England internationals Peter Crouch, Matthew Upson and Jonathan Woodgate.

Dogged, Stoke City most certainly are, but underdogs? Not any more.

[The Prisoner]

Surely Betfair or someone want to buy us?!?!

Think I'll go online and lay that at 1000.......

[Yorkshire Royal]

Tax Dodge? bet365 remain on shore when there is simply no reason to. Simply moving the operation to Gibraltar (where they have a gaming business already) would save the company 13% in GPT (gross profit tax - bookies pay a tax on how much they "win" from customers) on what they keep of that 5.4bn. It'll work out something like £30m they "could" save. Hence why Hills, Ladbrokes, betfair and soon Coral have all moved off shore.... So tax dodge is a little harsh when they pay way more tax than their competitors.

Aside form that though - this was kind of my point. Stoke are not going to go bust as long as online gambling remains legal in this country.

[RoyalBlue]

From today's Guardian, one of the reasons Stoke is able to throw money at football is because of a tax dodge by Bet365 :

Stoke City's manager Tony Pulis frequently plays the underdog card. But as his team stand just one place off a Champions League berth and have put Tottenham Hotspur out of the Carling Cup, it is time to debunk the myth.

In the 2009-10 season, the most recent for which accounts are available, Stoke's turnover was £58.98m, the Premier League's 14th highest. Yet Stoke are afforded many luxuries unavailable to their peers, thanks to being a subsidiary of an organisation with a turnover of £5.4bn a year. Stoke belong to bet365, and in the 2009-10 season were given a parent-company subsidy of £15.42m, serving as bet365's tax write-off – the company has been applauded, however, for keeping its entire betting operation in the UK, whereas most of its competitors' online and telephone-betting departments are offshore to avoid all tax.

It means Pulis was able to invest £20.58m, net, in new players in 2009-10 as the Potters spent £12.2m more than they earned that season, making their total subsidised expenditure £71.2m. Indeed, Stoke's parent-company structure gives them another great advantage: access to interest-free finance. That season Stoke's bank debt was a negligible £175,000, costing them £6,000 in interest fees. Everton, by contrast, must foot an annual interest bill of close to £4.5m – equivalent to two players earning £43,000 a week.

The available figures are dated, but there are no signs that bet365's investment has abated. Over the year to May 2010 Stoke's wage bill was a relatively modest £45m. But, in addition to another round of net transfer investment exceeding £20m last summer (and a few millions more in the previous one), salary costs have been swelled by the arrivals of well-paid players such as the England internationals Peter Crouch, Matthew Upson and Jonathan Woodgate.

Dogged, Stoke City most certainly are, but underdogs? Not any more.

Out of interest, how would you describe the situation where wealthy individuals remain out of the country for a defined period of time, in order to reduce the amount of UK tax that they have to pay? Beware of pots and kettles!

[Svlad Cjelli]

Out of interest, how would you describe the situation where wealthy individuals remain out of the country for a defined period of time, in order to reduce the amount of UK tax that they have to pay? Beware of pots and kettles!

Shabby, greedy and immoral.

And yes, I do appreciate the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. One is illegal, but just because the other is legal doesn't mean it's not also immoral. Don't get me started on Sir Philip Green & Vodafone....

But whilst the law is such people will take advantage of such dodges loopholes - and clubs with mega-rich parents will be provided with a financial (and therefore competitive) advantage over those that don't, courtesy of the tax regime.

[Alan Partridge]

Coppell said about Scott Bown they agreed a fee with Hibs but straight away his agent said they wanted x-amount a week. Can't remember the numbers i'm sure he said it. Coppell said he asked Brown to come and have a look around and they'd discuss terms once he got to Ding but Brown's agent was adament he wasn't coming down for less than x-amount. SO Coppell pulled the plug, the wages asked for where substantially higher than what the rest of the players were on at the time.

They were offered Gary Cahill for £3.5million but Coppell said himself he didn't think he was worth that - Whoops. At the time though this lad was nowhere near Villa's side and had just been on loan at SHeff Utd so you could understand the resentment to pay that sort of fee. Easy in hindsight but I thought even then that was a big mistake. He'd have been better even then than all of Reading's centre backs.

He didn't think Matt Taylor or Gary O Neil would be better than he had, he was offered both. Again mistake. Both of them would have been better than Hunt/Harper.

I think Coppell by his own admission stuck by his players far too much when it was clear radical changes were required. He should have taken all 3 of those players offered in January, but i can forgive him Scott Brown. I wouldn't have signed him either with that sort of attitude, especially when at the time this lad had only played for Hibs.

Tough one for Coppell at the time, in hindsight he got it wrong but you could understand why he took the decisions he did. Reading didn't go down by 10 points either, was goal difference, in a way it would have been better if Reading were 5/6 points adrift at the bottom he would have gambled more. Only a really disastrous end to the season sealed their fate, again well after the events of the transfer window.

[FiNeRaIn]

Coppell said about Scott Bown they agreed a fee with Hibs but straight away his agent said they wanted x-amount a week. Can't remember the numbers i'm sure he said it. Coppell said he asked Brown to come and have a look around and they'd discuss terms once he got to Ding but Brown's agent was adament he wasn't coming down for less than x-amount. SO Coppell pulled the plug, the wages asked for where substantially higher than what the rest of the players were on at the time.

When in reality he actually just rejected Reading because he was holding out for a bigger club. Nothing to do with wages.

[M-U-R-T-Y]

Shabby, greedy and immoral.

Led Zeppelin spent most of the year abroad either touring or recording during the 70's because record companies were paying 90% tax in the uk.

That's pretty justified IMO! Different times n' all, but just saying.

[Hoop Blah]

O'Neil woud've been the perfect answer to our lack of a right winger at the time. He'd also have been a very good option in the middle too. Massive mistake not taking him on in my opinion.

As AP says, the Cahil transfer looks a bit expensive but at the time I thought he'd walk into our side and was the perfect age and attitude for Reading as well.

Brown was never going to come down here to little old Reading so although I think he would've been a great replacement for Sidwell I don't think there was anything more we could've done there.

As for the tax dodging, I think the reference to glass houses was to do with Madejski saving however much on his tax bill by spending the best part of a year out in Malaysia (?) to set up his new company. I don't think Stoke or 365 have anything to be criticised for in this case. Tax right offs are part and parcel of every day life.

[RoyalBlue]

Out of interest, how would you describe the situation where wealthy individuals remain out of the country for a defined period of time, in order to reduce the amount of UK tax that they have to pay? Beware of pots and kettles!

Shabby, greedy and immoral.

And yes, I do appreciate the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. One is illegal, but just because the other is legal doesn't mean it's not also immoral. Don't get me started on Sir Philip Green & Vodafone....
.

You might argue that the scale is rather different but you could actually get started a lot closer to home than those names!

[Ian Royal]

Think AP has it spot on. Coppell made a mistake with the signings, or lack of them, in hindsight a mistake with massive consequences.Though even at the time it looked like a mistake, you can understand his logic and we were only relegated by a small margin, so it could easily have not had such massive consequences. Afterall it was as much an unbelievable fight back from Fulham as a capitulation from us that gave us the drop.

Given what he achieved I'm more than willing to forgive him of that. And I don't think he is at fault for the failure to go back up. He kept a lot of good players and the side should have been good enough. But too many of the players let him, and us, down at the crucial point.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Out of interest, how would you describe the situation where wealthy individuals remain out of the country for a defined period of time, in order to reduce the amount of UK tax that they have to pay? Beware of pots and kettles!

Shabby, greedy and immoral.

And yes, I do appreciate the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. One is illegal, but just because the other is legal doesn't mean it's not also immoral. Don't get me started on Sir Philip Green & Vodafone....
.

You might argue that the scale is rather different but you could actually get started a lot closer to home than those names!

No arguments there ....

[Royal Rother]

As the far from veiled accusations as to the moral standing of our Chairman float around would it be reasonable to observe that the tax saved by being non-domicile for a year or 2 has been reinvested in the UK creating jobs, tax revenues etc. etc.?