Of Assets and Liabilities


Timtim says: Monday, November 5, 2012 at 12:24 0 0 Rate …

Comment on Of Assets and Liabilities by Not The Huddle Malcontent.

timtim says:
Monday, November 5, 2012 at 12:24
0 0 Rate This
The record attendance for a Junior game is 77,650 between Petershill and Irvine Meadow
Just wondering what tier of Scottish football that falls under ?
I also believe that NO free tickets were given out either


it’s NOT the 4th tier, so BEAT IT TIMMY!! (sorry, that should of course be TIMMYTIMMY 🙂 )

Not The Huddle Malcontent Also Commented

Of Assets and Liabilities
Humble Pie says:
Monday, November 5, 2012 at 14:02
9 0 Rate This
paulsatim says:
Monday, November 5, 2012 at 13:39

That ticket appears to have a surname printed on it and doesn’t say ‘complimentary’ above the price. This would suggest that it belongs to a season ticket holder, so it may not actually have been free….maybe!


Maybe the named person was a debenture holder and they hadn’t renewed a season ticket due to being shafted – and this was a sweetner?

maybe they were just season ticket holders who hadn’t renewed and this was a sweetner to get them back on side (or more importantly – INSIDE)

either way, it was a cup game that wasn’t included in ST sales – so someone was getting in for free.

Of Assets and Liabilities
Chuckie not signing the Sky deal

can anyone explain this one to me?

What was the new SKY deal announced in the summer? Thought it was 5 years at £12M a year and that the SPL had paid the SFL £1M PA for their TV rights – Sky did not want to deal with both governing bodies so the SPL had to bid for the rights and Sky bought them from SPL?

Also, would any one club be involved in signing a TV deal? thoguht the baords did that on behalf of their members

Also see there is much talk of Sevco signing the deal “under duress” and talk of this being illegal – what chances that Chuckie will challenge that and have the deal undone – or is it more likely this is just bear baiting rhetoric to drum up the siege mentality and get those share cheques posted ASAP from gullible bears eager to have a miserable christmas

Of Assets and Liabilities
oops – didnt’ cut and paste the whole story…….

The Tax Office has offered settlements to numerous trust beneficiaries
In a letter to the head of JP Morgan’s tax department dated September 10, HMRC said: “As you are aware, the Government put in place legislation in 2011 to put beyond doubt the tax treatment of employee benefit trust arrangements.

“In addition, HMRC continues to robustly challenge the taxation treatment of such arrangements under previous legislation.

It adds: “In this context and where we are unable to agree a settlement HMRC will continue to formally progress its enquiries into the taxation treatment of the trusts.”

Last year HMRC contacted more than 2,000 employers and offered settlements over disputed employee benefit trusts (EBTs).

Earlier this year action was taken by HMRC against UBS and Deutsche Bank over EBTs, which contested the Tax Office claims.

HMRC has estimated that up to £1.7bn of tax and NI contributions were at stake in EBTs, including the “dependent fund” plans operated by JP Morgan.

The investment bank’s staff who were part of the employee benefit trusts of 1998, 2006, 2007 and 2008 and the 2010 executive retirement plan are affected by the HMRC action.

The ruling impacts both current and former UK-based staff, whether or not they are British citizens or foreign nationals.

The employees’ Jersey tax haven funds have been managed by subsidiaries of the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), which describe the island as “tax neutral”.

RBC’s wealth management section actively promotes the benefits of using the island for affluent individuals.

“The chief preoccupation of most ultra high net worth families is wealth preservation,” RBC explains on its website.

“Only by structuring their affairs legitimately and with the advice of professionals, including lawyers, accountants, trust and tax experts, private clients will be able to protect their assets.”

RBC Europe Ltd has offered JP Morgan workers collaterised bridging loans of more than £250,000 to fund the Tax Office demand.

Jersey is described as “tax neutral” by fund manager RBC
JP Morgan’s private bank has also offered financing arrangements for those who need more than £300,000, or mortgage arrangements in excess of £1m, to facilitate the settlement payments.

Helplines have been set up for workers in regard to the Tax Office offer by JP Morgan, RBC and advisers KPMG.

JP Morgan still disputes the offshore payments as being salary but has agreed to the settlement to avoid litigation under the recently enacted Disguised Remuneration legislation.

A JP Morgan spokesman told Sky News: “Our employee trust has always been transparent to HMRC, and its independent trustee has consistently paid taxes in accordance with UK tax law.

“In addition to taxes paid by the trust, JP Morgan has paid, on average, more than £1bn of corporation and payroll taxes to HMRC annually over the past decade.”

Recent Comments by Not The Huddle Malcontent

Why We Need to Change
This one AmFearLiathMòr?

Beadie v Aberdeen

(By outside the D, do you mean inside the penalty box?!! )

Why We Need to Change
I see the subject of Gate Sharing raised it’s head again in the last few days….great topic.

I seem to remember one of the Jambo boys doing a great analysis of this back in RTC days

I think we need to establish what we are hoping to achieve by going down a “gate sharing” route.

It’s easy to say we are spreading/equalising the income for clubs and levelling the playing field, but it’s not that straight forward

Some clubs like St J, Hibs, Celtic (and increasingly many others in the modern scottish game) are run responsibly and will pay off debts, balance the books, improve infrastructure whilst some other clubs are absolute basket cases and will blow it on buying any passing player who will prop them up for a few months (yes Sevco, you!!!)

So, guidance needs to be put in place

I suggest we want clubs to target the following criteria (for example only – i haven’t thought this through entirely)

1. Financial stability – adopting some form of FFP model where clubs must, on the whole, break even – something like break even over a 3 season period – allowing an overspend one year to be balanced out in subsequent years, strict controls on wage to turnover ratios, maybe even a wage cap based on turnover

2. Player development – clubs should be encouraged to develop their own youth players…ideally scottish players, but in reality it doesn’t matter, if they can scout, sign and develop a 14-17 year old Bulgarian who comes through into the 1st team, then fine. But, the pathway should be for youngsters coming through the ranks and into the 1st team rather than the previously flawed models of trying to buy players in (which is a much rarer event outwith Celtic these days) or paying over the jobs for journeymen players looking for a payday.

Following on from that though, for the benefit of the domestic game, i think clubs should also be rewarded for playing domestic reared players – i.e. keeping talent developed in scotland in scotland.

3. Finally, clubs should be rewarded based on their on field performance.

now that we have established some loose criteria for what we need clubs to do to be successful and therefore rewarded with real cash money, we need to find that money.

The subject of gate sharing is a hard one for fans to swallow, but it is undeniable that the scottish game was mush more competitive when gates were shared.

So, lets not start there, lets start with UEFA money!

Celtic get approx £20M for reaching the CL group stages. Alone, that far outstrips the income of many clubs, so why not “tax” it.

Lets take 50% of all UEFA monies and through it into a “prie pot” (Europa monies will go into the prize pot too, i’m not suggesting just Celtic fund this)

Then, lets put a “tax” on transfers – say 10% of all transfer fees received goes into the prize pot.

Then onto the subject of “gate sharing” Instead of splitting the gate 50/50 with the opponent on the day, I suggest we start more modestly. in the 1st year, lets take 10% of the ticket income for the year (ST’s or walk up) and throw that into the prize pot as well. it can be ramped up to 50% over a number of seasons.

Into the prize pot goes all the other commercial income generated by the league – TV, sponsorship deals etc.

that then gives us a big pot of cash

That can then be divided up based on the earlier criteria – run a tight financial ship, bring through a lot of youngsters and play a lot of scottish players and do well in the league and you could get more than the team that wins the league but had huge debts, no youth players and full of foreigners.

Over a period of 10 years, this would hugely level the playing field in Scotland, we’d see much more competition, we should see more stability at clubs as they manage finances better and we should hopefully see a lot more youngsters come through – and reach the quality that is needed to improve the quality of the game overall.

Anyway, that is my thoughts on the subject (and i guess that is why my name was not mentioned in the list of posters that were missed!!)

Why We Need to Change
“He latest post suggests that 30,000 STs will bring in a modest £5.4M after deduction of VAT. That would mean an average £180 per ST.”

naw, 30k tickets at £225, less 20% VAT = 5.4M

I guess you have to factor in the number of concession tickets into that equation….that will severely hamper the ave ticket price.

Pretty sure from last accounts the ave st price was about £225 – so, i’d expect it to be 5% higher this year as they stated (4% after VAT!)

Why We Need to Change
Hola SFM community

1st off, I applaud and welcome moves by Big Pink to grow the blog/forum and it’s influence. You have to keep moving forward or die.

Having said that, i think you may be over reaching with such a broad remit.

Football is the worlds biggest sport and you will have a huge potential audience sticking to it.

it’s what all the current contributors know and love and talk about, and it would be easier to expand the forum to capture similar fans and fans concerns about the game by reaching out with a English FM, Welsh FM, Irish FM and Northern Irish FM.

From there, the topics of UEFA, FIFA and comps like WCs, Euro championships, qualifiers and even global rules changes can be discussed and moaned over….such as the controversial “tv evidence” debate and the more controversial “UEFA CL” money/allocation of places/seedings debates.

Then you could look to going truly international on football – sticking to the sport we all know and love

Or you could look to go into other UK & Ireland based sports – sticking to the “domestic” audience (i am expecting a few complaints from Irish for being lumped in with the UK there!)

Either way, once you had proven that you could 1st of all expand the remit from Scottish to UK/Irish football, you could then push to expand and repeat the process again.

Small, organic steps, learning as you go. I am sure this would bring in reasonable income through sponsorship/subscriptions/advertisement.

(buy hey, it’s your ball, your vision, i am just giving you my thoughts and you can take them on board or push on with your own plans)

Eventually, i think you could reach your aims of international/independent sports fair play watch dog/sounding board/rallying point for action.

As for going forward, I think your radio show should do a daily/weekly round up of “what the papers said”

Basically taking the main stories from the MSM and tearing it to shreds….invite the writers of the articles in to defend themselves, contact the clubs/players/agents/authorities involved and ask them for a comment on the article and on TSFM’s analysis of the puff piece and set up weekly polls asking fans of all clubs to give their feedback on the story/analysis to show how fans are displeased with the sports coverage we are getting.

you could also have (less frequent) analysis of punishments handed out by the authorities – and compare/contrast the punishments/circumstances handed out by the same and other governing bodies. This could be sent onto the national associations and uefa/fifa for their comment.

Also, if you really want to move forward, i honestly believe the format of the forum needs to change into a more traditional forum format with a thread for each topic/blog and comments related to the blog compartmentalised within it – it would allow a greater number of threads to be discussed simultaneously and interested parties to follow the blog/topic of their interest.

Lastly, apologies for being a random reader/contributor the past 16 months, the arrival of number 2 child has brought it’s own challenges on my free time and i find twitter makes it easier for me to keep up to date on the latest shenanigans, even if it does mean i miss out on the great detailed analysis/opinion this site carries on the subject matter.

Whatever way you go, good luck.

(EDIT to add – only 4 comments? WTF? I assume my history has been wiped due to inactivity at some point!! oh well.)

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
scarecrow666 says:
April 19, 2015 at 3:10 pm
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
April 19, 2015 at 11:24 am
Then, there would be the ability to see all 90 mins of every game on delayed transmission for something like £30 a month.
Sorry, but unless you were covering all of scottish sport not just football that would be utter s@#t value for money. Sky sports packages range from £20-30 per month giving you lots of channels with different sports. Setanta struggled at £10 per month and that included Dutch league football. How could you possibly justify £30 per month for delayed streaming twice a week for only scottish matches ?

Quick look at the sky website tells me the cost of sky sports will be £47 a month


Ok, maybe £30 a month is too steep for just the Scottish game – but for that price, there is no reason why they could not also buy rights for other countries games/sports too. Or even still, reduce it to say £20 a month.

As the only outlet to watch Scottish games, i’m sure it’ll be OK7

As for Setanta, i believe they were doing fine until they went toe to toe with Sky and started buying up EPL rights and games for England internationals. It was that overspend and the comparative lack of subscribers that done for them.

About the author