PDA

View Full Version : A moral question


Jonzy54
08-02-2012, 16:32
Putting today's court decision aside I find it utterly reprehensible that a deal was struck between Redknapp and Mandaric which would give the former 10% of the Crouch transfer in the first place.Redknapp can create all the smoke and mirrors he likes about it being a bonus or an investment payment but the bottom line is all/some of the money came from Portsmouth.
My question is ,in the light of Portsmouth's subsequent and ongoing financial difficulties is it right he received this bonus in the first place,and how many similar deals did he benefit from at the expense of the club as a whole?

kidder_wolf_II
08-02-2012, 16:43
It's not the first time such a deal has been in place at a club. Luton had the same deal in place while mike Newell was at the club and L Orient currently adopt the bonus scheme.

Personally I don't think it's fair on the fans that the manager is actively looking to sell his star players.

Portsmouth and Luton went into meltdown while these systems were in place so how can anyone argue that it's good for the club.

UEAwolf
08-02-2012, 16:44
Ian Holloway too...

FLEET WOLF
08-02-2012, 16:44
Putting today's court decision aside I find it utterly reprehensible that a deal was struck between Redknapp and Mandaric which would give the former 10% of the Crouch transfer in the first place.Redknapp can create all the smoke and mirrors he likes about it being a bonus or an investment payment but the bottom line is all/some of the money came from Portsmouth.
My question is ,in the light of Portsmouth's subsequent and ongoing financial difficulties is it right he received this bonus in the first place,and how many similar deals did he benefit from at the expense of the club as a whole?

You make a very good point and I have no doubt that there is a lot more to come out about this saga in relation to Portsmouth FC, in the future. By then Arry will probably be England manager.

Penk Wolf
08-02-2012, 16:48
He had a payment for the Rio deal too. What I would like to know is how Harry was allowed to invest in Oxford whilst managing another club.

jrpb-3
08-02-2012, 16:57
I can just about see a justification in the case where a manager has trained and improved a young player and a profit is made on the sale of the player that a bonus of some small percentage of the profit (not the whole transfer fee) is given, but not a general clause for all sales and not just a percentage of the sale. I'm sure managers must get other performance/win league position type bonuses.

Many businesses give employees performance related bonuses so nothing in principle wrong with that, but it should be for meeting particular performance levels e.g. bonus for finishing 4th place or above.

getting any cut from the sale of a player is a borderline case at best

loopy lupine
08-02-2012, 17:19
This also highlights the difference between the amount the transfer is put at and the actual amount the club pays.

If a player moves for £5m, it looks like you have to deduct manager bonus, agent fee, loyalty payment to the player, tax (do you pay tax and VAT on player trading as you would a business commodity??), etc?

So the actual amount that swells the coffers is likely to be £3m or less??!!

PumpKing
08-02-2012, 17:32
The whole damn system is rife with all sorts of dodgy under the table dealing. The F.A. is no doubt involved in it all so why should we expect any control.

On the subject of today`s ruling, I`m intrigued as to why a payment classed as a bonus obviously has tax payable on it but class it as an investment and apparently it`s tax free. To my laymans mind, both are increasing someones financial assets and should be liable.

No doubt today proves that expensive corporate lawyers are worth every penny.
Shame the ordinary tax payer gets screwed yet again to pay for this so called justice.

IrchyWolf
08-02-2012, 17:33
This also highlights the difference between the amount the transfer is put at and the actual amount the club pays.

If a player moves for £5m, it looks like you have to deduct manager bonus, agent fee, loyalty payment to the player, tax (do you pay tax and VAT on player trading as you would a business commodity??), etc?

So the actual amount that swells the coffers is likely to be £3m or less??!!

Alternatively, if a player is an asset on the books, can you add in depreciation?

BuzzO)))
08-02-2012, 17:39
The whole damn system is rife with all sorts of dodgy under the table dealing. The F.A. is no doubt involved in it all so why should we expect any control.

On the subject of today`s ruling, I`m intrigued as to why a payment classed as a bonus obviously has tax payable on it but class it as an investment and apparently it`s tax free. To my laymans mind, both are increasing someones financial assets and should be liable.

No doubt today proves that expensive corporate lawyers are worth every penny.

A payment that is a bonus is derived from employment so taxable as income (Under ITEPA 2003)

Whereas, gifting someone money for an investment purpose doesn't arise from the employment, so isn't taxable - the profits made from the investment may end up being taxable depending on the nature of investment (be it a capital gain or income tax on interest)

loopy lupine
08-02-2012, 17:44
Alternatively, if a player is an asset on the books, can you add in depreciation?

Surely players can depriciate or appreciate depending on their form?

3 years ago having just been promoted, what price would we have got for SEB? Now, probably a lot less.

4 years ago we paid Gillingham £1m for Jarvis, now??

A players true worth is only known until he is sold, however I guess depreciation is worked out based on the remaining years of their contract, how though I haven't got the faintest!

Penk Wolf
08-02-2012, 17:47
The whole damn system is rife with all sorts of dodgy under the table dealing. The F.A. is no doubt involved in it all so why should we expect any control.


Dodgy under the table dealings goes on in every industry, don't think it is exclusive to football.

-MTW-
08-02-2012, 17:48
Alternatively, if a player is an asset on the books, can you add in depreciation?

No mate you take it away.

All assets are subject to amortisation within a company.

PumpKing
08-02-2012, 17:49
A payment that is a bonus is derived from employment so taxable as income (Under ITEPA 2003)

Whereas, gifting someone money for an investment purpose doesn't arise from the employment, so isn't taxable - the profits made from the investment may end up being taxable depending on the nature of investment (be it a capital gain or income tax on interest)



I`m obliged to me learned friend for the clarification. :D

No doubt then, if my said investment then does bear friut eventually and therefore becomes liable for tax, I can offset the cost and running expenses of my 100ft motor launch in the Carribean in order to reduce said tax a little.

Sorry. but there`s non so bitter as a poor man.

saturday boy
08-02-2012, 18:07
Redknapp (and other managers) don't get 10% of the transfer, only a percentage of the net profit. If they bring in a player cheaply, develop their potential and sell them on they have done a good job for their employer and are rewarded for it. It may be obscene amounts of money but it strikes me as being a small equaliser in a game where players are paid significantly more than the managers who manage them - moreso at the highest level.

Tors
08-02-2012, 18:30
No moral questions please, this is a football site, morals went out of football 30 years ago at least!!!.

ice cream head
08-02-2012, 18:31
Redknapp (and other managers) don't get 10% of the transfer, only a percentage of the net profit. If they bring in a player cheaply, develop their potential and sell them on they have done a good job for their employer and are rewarded for it. It may be obscene amounts of money but it strikes me as being a small equaliser in a game where players are paid significantly more than the managers who manage them - moreso at the highest level.

Really? Capello earns £6M per year which is on a par with or more than most of the players he picks. I imagine all of the top 6 managers in the country take home the average pay of their squads. As far as I can see, bonuses on net profits serve the manager, the player (who will get a signing on fee and higher wages) and the clubs. 'The most important people' are the only ones who lose out.

saturday boy
08-02-2012, 18:54
Really? Capello earns £6M per year which is on a par with or more than most of the players he picks. I imagine all of the top 6 managers in the country take home the average pay of their squads. As far as I can see, bonuses on net profits serve the manager, the player (who will get a signing on fee and higher wages) and the clubs. 'The most important people' are the only ones who lose out.

Capello doesn't buy and sell players for England.

How much do Premier League managers earn?

Jonzy54
08-02-2012, 18:59
No moral questions please, this is a football site, morals went out of football 30 years ago at least!!!.

:rolleyes:

IrchyWolf
08-02-2012, 19:12
No mate you take it away.

All assets are subject to amortisation within a company.

:) Thanks, I was aware of that. I meant, could you add it in as an additional factor to be considered. Still, it WAS clumsily worded. Mea maxima culpa.

WonderWolf
08-02-2012, 19:24
I don't like this at all....it doesn't sit right.

It seems it will be in the manager's interest to purchase players with potential only to sell them on. How does this fit in with team development?...

Should not be allowed. Football clubs have become play things for private little ventures with the fans being duped about competing. It stinks!!

ice cream head
08-02-2012, 19:57
Capello doesn't buy and sell players for England.



He manages at the highest level and his wages are comparable with his players.

*He did, I just heard he's resigned.

Redknapp for England now then i'd imagine.

saturday boy
08-02-2012, 20:09
He manages at the highest level and his wages are comparable with his players.

*He did, I just heard he's resigned.

Redknapp for England now then i'd imagine.

I don't consider the England job to be a higher level than a Premier League manager.

Mark Rankines Lovechild
08-02-2012, 20:10
If it is all so above board why have the account in the name of your dog?

Apocalypse Now
08-02-2012, 20:46
No mate you take it away.

All assets are subject to amortisation within a company.

No they are not.

ice cream head
08-02-2012, 20:48
I don't consider the England job to be a higher level than a Premier League manager.


Who said it was? (I can argue semantics aswell)

The point is, managers at the higher levels are paid well. The bonuses some recieve for net profits on transfers are a conflict of interests. I don't agree that they deserve this perk because the players are paid more (at the highest level) as it's obviously not true and even if it was, it's still unethical.

The football clubs supporters are the only ones who don't benefit. In fact, not only do they not benefit, they are the only people losing out.

Boss Hogg
08-02-2012, 20:49
I think Dario Gradi at Crewe was saying that he had a similar arrangement and it was the only thing that made the job worth doing as the salary was so poor.

To me this type of deal should be banned: it creates a conflict of interest - sell player for £Xm and take your 10% or keep him in the team where he could break leg/not perform and get £0.

Apocalypse Now
08-02-2012, 20:50
If it is all so above board why have the account in the name of your dog?

Code for "how the hell did they get away with it" and have been wondering that myself. I can only assume that my knowledge of Laandan geography is so bad I hadn't realised Southwark court is next door to White Hart Lane and you have to show a season ticket as ID to get into the jury room.

Apocalypse Now
08-02-2012, 20:52
I think Dario Gradi at Crewe was saying that he had a similar arrangement and it was the only thing that made the job worth doing as the salary was so poor.

To me this type of deal should be banned: it creates a conflict of interest - sell player for £Xm and take your 10% or keep him in the team where he could break leg/not perform and get £0.

But does it also not encourage to unearth diamonds rather than buying established players for millions with no resale value?

MonkeySpanner
08-02-2012, 20:52
Putting today's court decision aside I find it utterly reprehensible that a deal was struck between Redknapp and Mandaric which would give the former 10% of the Crouch transfer in the first place.Redknapp can create all the smoke and mirrors he likes about it being a bonus or an investment payment but the bottom line is all/some of the money came from Portsmouth.
My question is ,in the light of Portsmouth's subsequent and ongoing financial difficulties is it right he received this bonus in the first place,and how many similar deals did he benefit from at the expense of the club as a whole?

They have been found innocent in a court of law that resides in a free speaking country so that should be the end of it.

As for morals, since the existence of the human race have we as a species actually had any?

Boss Hogg
08-02-2012, 20:54
It's a good point AN but at the end of the day a manager with this type of deal is always going to be inclined to sell the player which may not be good for the club or the player's career, only good for the manager's pocket.

paddy
08-02-2012, 21:01
moral question - indeed

payment, bonus whatever - was tax paid on this remuneration - no

how the **** did they get off

as ever high paid legal teams and chirpy joke or two to a gullible jury

justice - my $$$$

Nero wolf
08-02-2012, 21:03
Moral and top football just doesn´t mix anymore.

Apocalypse Now
08-02-2012, 21:08
It's a good point AN but at the end of the day a manager with this type of deal is always going to be inclined to sell the player which may not be good for the club or the player's career, only good for the manager's pocket.

I agree to a point but you could argue if the player is really good why not keep him and increase his value even more. I believe what it could encourage is "churning" with lots of moves in and out for average players. Arry is known as a wheeler- dealer. - I am sure you can draw your own conclusion as to why that may be.

ice cream head
08-02-2012, 21:10
It's a good point AN but at the end of the day a manager with this type of deal is always going to be inclined to sell the player which may not be good for the club or the player's career, only good for the manager's pocket.

I agree that it's the manager who will benefit most, however the club and the player will both also benefit financially aswell.

If McCarthy has/had this type of clause in his contract and one of the top 6 offer 5M for Kightly, McCarthy will be turning down a guaranteed £500,000 if he says not for sale. Only a saint or a very rich man would say no to that.

BlackBully
09-02-2012, 00:50
Hold on a minute, have we all forgotten about our very own Mr Moxey's nice fat return on the Henri Camara deal? He pocketed a fat £169000 from it! On top of his reported £1m p.a. salary and bonuses.

WonderWolf
09-02-2012, 09:28
Hold on a minute, have we all forgotten about our very own Mr Moxey's nice fat return on the Henri Camara deal? He pocketed a fat £169000 from it! On top of his reported £1m p.a. salary and bonuses.

Is this true? :dong::mad:...