Torquay United Fans Forum

You know who I meant lol.

My only excuse is that it was early and I'd been up late the night before. Oops.

[quote="Southampton Gull"]

£175k was a ridiculously low valuation to put on him and [color=#FF0000]Bill Rogers[/color] should have been a lot tougher during the negotiations IMHO.[/quote]

That's a big ask though, given that he expired 8 years ago!!! o:)

Eunan couldn't and wouldn't have walked, we'd have made him an offer, if he didn't accept it and clubs wanted him then it would have gone before a tribunal if terms weren't agreeable to the club. Does anyone realistically think we'd have been worse off financially if we'd refused to cave in?

His new contract brought a hefty pay increase and at the time he was barely known outside Plainmoor so I doubt there would have been too many takers, let's face it, only Swindon and Crawley have made firm approaches after he had a fantastic season overall. £175k was a ridiculously low valuation to put on him and Bill Rogers should have been a lot tougher during the negotiations IMHO.

[quote="Glostergull"]

It depends on what you mean by Clubs paying big players Taxes.
In Tax Law. Any company employing a player will have to deduct tax from their pay as an unpaid tax collector. This is the norm.
But if your alluding to the player getting his full share without deductions and the club paying his tax bill as an added bonus. This creats a problem.
A player signs a contract for a term agreed at a salary agreed. The club cannot therefor pay an amounf in adition and above that contracted amount as the tax for that payers Salary. That would be additional benifit in kind. and itself would also attract tax as it is deemed part of his Salary. i.e. A player is contracted to play for the next 2 years as a salary of £5,200.000 per year. ie £100.000 a week. The tax would be calculated on that £100,000. so he would get the relevant tax deducted for that amount only.[color=#FF4040] Allowing for his personal allowance of course.[/color]
If the club paid that player the full £100.00 a week without deducting tax and NI and then paid an additional payment to the tax man to cover the tax that he would have paid on the £100.000 a week. then the wage bill would be the full payment plus the £100.00 plus the tax bill and his contract would have to allow for that so in reality his contracted payment would be for £11,000,000 as the tax would be 45% plus [color=#FF4040]11% [/color]for NI as there is now no upper limit. Phew that took some working out.
Trust me I know!
It's very big money but that's what we are dealing with nowadays. thank goodness Plainmoor isn't in that league.[/quote]


Not bad Gloster
Couple of points
As he earns so much he wouldn't get any personal allowance
NI is 12 % up to £817 per week and 2% on everything above
He could be paid on what is known as a FOT basis(free of tax). This basically means that the employer has agreed in the contract to pay him for example £100k per week 'take home' and the employer pays the tax/NI . What this would mean is that the true gross pay would be nearer £208k per week(50% tax/2% NI)
Of course as has been stated alot of players have companies set up to avoid paying this sort of tax and end up paying very little like Jimmy Carr by using various schemes not available to us mere mortals
Getting back on to the point of agents I understand that Eunans agent insisted on the £175k clause, Torquay wanted more but had to agree or let Eunan walk last year when his contract ran out. Also it is obviously in the agents interest to get the the player to move so that he can get his commission as he earns very little if the player stays.

[quote="cambgull"]I thought most clubs pay big players tax?[/quote]

It depends on what you mean by Clubs paying big players Taxes.
In Tax Law. Any company employing a player will have to deduct tax from their pay as an unpaid tax collector. This is the norm.
But if your alluding to the player getting his full share without deductions and the club paying his tax bill as an added bonus. This creats a problem.
A player signs a contract for a term agreed at a salary agreed. The club cannot therefor pay an amounf in adition and above that contracted amount as the tax for that payers Salary. That would be additional benifit in kind. and itself would also attract tax as it is deemed part of his Salary. i.e. A player is contracted to play for the next 2 years as a salary of £5,200.000 per year. ie £100.000 a week. The tax would be calculated on that £100,000. so he would get the relevant tax deducted for that amount only. Allowing for his personal allowance of course.
If the club paid that player the full £100.00 a week without deducting tax and NI and then paid an additional payment to the tax man to cover the tax that he would have paid on the £100.000 a week. then the wage bill would be the full payment plus the £100.00 plus the tax bill and his contract would have to allow for that so in reality his contracted payment would be for £11,000,000 as the tax would be 45% plus 11% for NI as there is now no upper limit. Phew that took some working out.
Trust me I know!
It's very big money but that's what we are dealing with nowadays. thank goodness Plainmoor isn't in that league.

I thought most clubs pay big players tax?

Most players in the top couple of divisions are now set up as companies, or at least have companies attached to their name. Their agents often facilitate that, and whilst not too popular to those at clubs negotiating contacts, on the whole do a good job as far as players are concerned.

In my opinion top footballers will one day be exposed for the very limited amount of taxes they pay out of their £100,000 a week salaries. It really is a scandle. Just one example is that their "company" will hold the rights to their image and will therefore play less tax when that is paid for than a man working in a fcatory would pay.

Unfortunately top footballers are "sexy" ....top bankers or indeed leaders of 100 FTSE industries less so, so whilst it is OK for the likes of John Terry to be paid silly sums of money and pay proportionally less tax than a CEO of a large company it is the later who gets the stick despite directly creating growth in the economy and jobs.....

Wooden horse......

[quote="Trojan 67"]Back in the day, before mobile phones, internet and television, there was the wireless (radio). Back then, the only agent of note was Special Agent Captain R*chard Barton . . . aka D*ck.

;-)[/quote]
yeah but back then men walked in front of cars with red flags. A little Birdie told me you held the towel for Mathew Webb after he swam the Channel. You remember that don't you Trojan

Back in the day, before mobile phones, internet and television, there was the wireless (radio). Back then, the only agent of note was Special Agent Captain R*chard Barton . . . aka D*ck.

;-)


From the era of television, not wireless (radio), the unforgetable theme tune from R*chard (D*ck) Barton - Special Agent . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXugAiYcQlk&feature=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

;-)

Instead of moaning about football agents, get a license and become an agent, hard work, lots of traveling, but the pay isn't bad :)

Youve never used a recruitment agent? I have. I dont think it makes me lazy, its just that they are paid to know whats going on in my market, im not. Football agents are paid to know whats going on in football, footballers aren't

No but if i applied for a job then i wouldn't pay somebody to pour over the t's and c's of my contract and maybe negotiate more salary. If i WAS going to do that then obviously i'd do it myself.

[quote="austrianandygull"]Sorry lads but i don't agree. Just another excuse to get someone else to do things for you.[/quote]

Fair enough.

I guess this means that you do all your own wiring, plumbing, and cooking....you do all of your own car repairs, keep all of your money under the mattress, never stay in hotels, refuse to go to restaurants, painted your house - inside and out - on your own, *and* homeschool your kids. (if you have any)

Every service industry ever is "another excuse to get someone else to do things for you". You first decide whether you have the expertise, and the work out if the going rate is worth it. Same with agents.

Sorry lads but i don't agree. Just another excuse to get someone else to do things for you.