RDBD
"SOLELY"? No, I'm sure it has many advantages beyond purely those relating to tax.
"except RDBD who I'm sure is a paragon of virtue"
Well, since my company has been operating since 1991, pays the appropriate taxes, always has residual profit > 30% of annual profit etc, I like to think that in corporate terms you are absolutely correct.
RDBD
I wasn't being sarcastic, I trust you.
As for tax avoidance, well I don't know because as you point out the foreign registration gives a great degree of privacy with regard to company affairs. Would Spurs take advantage of that Bahamas registered status to pay less tax or not? What do you think?
Numbers
The percentage of sell on profit is to me a great idea. It means West Ham pay less upfront, but if/when the two David's sell up the tax payer gets some more money, once again not from the club but from what would then be the old owners.
So the tax payer wins at no cost to the club, works for me.
I don't hate Spurs, it was Spurs fans use of terms like "D.ildo bros" that simply led me to point out that few if any business man or companies are whiter than white (except RDBD who I'm sure is a paragon of virtue).As for tax avoidance, well I don't know because as you point out the foreign registration gives a great degree of privacy with regard to company affairs. Would Spurs take advantage of that Bahamas registered status to pay less tax or not? What do you think?
Again I have not used that term & you are desperately clutching at straws with the Bahamas thing............................................because we have business ties to Tavistock it does not follow that we could offset taxes in the manner you are alluding to.
I have a p enis, does not mean I am going to go out & se xually attack someone, does it?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Of course not, but thier is a huge difference.
I'm not accusing Spurs/ENIC of doing anything illegal or even unusual. I'm simply pointing out that the company structure gives certain tax benefits which would not be available if the ownership did not pass through a Bahamas registered subsidiary.
I'm finding it difficult to understand why me pointing out that ENIC is shrewdly run upsets you?
"Would Spurs take advantage of that Bahamas registered status to pay less tax or not? What do you think?"
THFC have been an ENIC subsidiary for 11 yrs.
Therefore 11 yrs of opportunity.
What do the accounts over that period tell you about how THFC have been managing their profits ??
"I'm simply pointing out that the company structure gives certain tax benefits which would not be available if the ownership did not pass through a Bahamas registered subsidiary."
Be specific.
WHAT "benefits" ??
HOW are these benefits achieved ??
Try to keep it in the realms of real examples if you can (like a subsidiary within the Starbucks conglomerate selling from a better tax regime materials to a subsidiary operating in a higher tax regime) .
I'm finding it difficult to understand why me pointing out that ENIC is shrewdly run upsets you?
But you are not suggesting we are run shrewdly as you put it. You are implying that we are taking advantage of Tavistock being a registered Bahamian company! There is a big difference between those comments!
As RDBD has so expertly pointed out could you please expand on what you mean by "benefits"...............................innuendo is such an inexact science!
Does Dramatic need another one of these again...
When you incorporate in the Bahamas you get:
Complete Anonymity
No Corporate Income Tax
No Personal Income Tax
No Information Sharing
Stockholders are Not Public Record
No Tax On Corporate Shares
That is not innuendo, but is different to being based in the UK.
Dramatic,
Quick, jump in...
So which of that long but far from exhaustive list of advantages Bahamas based companies get over UK based ones do you think first attracted ENIC?
Sorry, but you appear to not understand the question.
How do Spurs, a UK based Ltd co and subsidiary of the ENIC beast, gain any tax advantages on their profits purely because the parent entity is Bahamas registered ??
Oh and Chicken please feel free to join in, but try to do so with intelligent contributions, not just childish smilies. The adults are talking here.
The adults are talking here.
============
One adult is, the other is talking rubbish, hence the .
RDBD
Sorry? I thought we were talking about Spurs owners being "whiter than white".
That aside, Spurs benefit in many ways, a simple one is the new stadium funding. Money will need to be raised, financial assurance given etc. All guaranteed by a company enjoying the foreign tax status I listed above.
To be continued, have a good weekend people.
Again, you don't seem to understand WTF you are talking about.
I asked a specific question. Which you either do not understand, or the answer does not support your claims.
And to kill your latest nonsence while I'm here :
The FINANCIAL MIGHT of ENIC is what provides "financial assurance" , not their registered domicile.
So I change my company domicile to the Bahamas, and suddenly the less than 70K pa max EVER, one man band Ltd co is assured of loaning millions of pounds.
"The FINANCIAL MIGHT of ENIC is what provides "financial assurance" , not their registered domicile."
So their registered domicile does not help ENIC maintain and extend thier "FINANCIAL MIGHT" in your opinion?
The answer to your specific question is really that last paragraph, Spurs as you rightly point out benefit from the "FINANCIAL MIGHT" and backing of the foreign registered company.
Really am going to the pub now, Monday people and fowl.
You really are clueless, ain't ya.
ENIC benefit from OWNING a PORTFOLIO of successfully performing businesses. That is WHAT a potential lender would look at, not their REGISTERED domicile.
It was really that easy, the D1ldo bros would register the s in the Bahamas, and have access to a credit tap that meant they wouldn't need to even beg Newham council to chip in.
Soooo much jealousy! I love it! Conjecture, wishful thinking etc.
Greaves suggests West Ham will not fill the OS, but then goes on to say that our owners simply want to get the OS so they can sell up.
But if the OS can't be filled, why would any potential owner be interested?
Or, you could listen to the Mayor of London who says West Ham's value will increase significantly due to the OS move. Who to believe: bitter Spurs fans, or those with expertise in these matters..?
Sign in if you want to comment
Reasons behind OS Decision Delay?
Page 14 of 15
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
posted on 7/12/12
RDBD
"SOLELY"? No, I'm sure it has many advantages beyond purely those relating to tax.
posted on 7/12/12
"except RDBD who I'm sure is a paragon of virtue"
Well, since my company has been operating since 1991, pays the appropriate taxes, always has residual profit > 30% of annual profit etc, I like to think that in corporate terms you are absolutely correct.
posted on 7/12/12
RDBD
I wasn't being sarcastic, I trust you.
As for tax avoidance, well I don't know because as you point out the foreign registration gives a great degree of privacy with regard to company affairs. Would Spurs take advantage of that Bahamas registered status to pay less tax or not? What do you think?
posted on 7/12/12
Numbers
The percentage of sell on profit is to me a great idea. It means West Ham pay less upfront, but if/when the two David's sell up the tax payer gets some more money, once again not from the club but from what would then be the old owners.
So the tax payer wins at no cost to the club, works for me.
posted on 7/12/12
I don't hate Spurs, it was Spurs fans use of terms like "D.ildo bros" that simply led me to point out that few if any business man or companies are whiter than white (except RDBD who I'm sure is a paragon of virtue).As for tax avoidance, well I don't know because as you point out the foreign registration gives a great degree of privacy with regard to company affairs. Would Spurs take advantage of that Bahamas registered status to pay less tax or not? What do you think?
Again I have not used that term & you are desperately clutching at straws with the Bahamas thing............................................because we have business ties to Tavistock it does not follow that we could offset taxes in the manner you are alluding to.
I have a p enis, does not mean I am going to go out & se xually attack someone, does it?
posted on 7/12/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 7/12/12
Of course not, but thier is a huge difference.
I'm not accusing Spurs/ENIC of doing anything illegal or even unusual. I'm simply pointing out that the company structure gives certain tax benefits which would not be available if the ownership did not pass through a Bahamas registered subsidiary.
I'm finding it difficult to understand why me pointing out that ENIC is shrewdly run upsets you?
posted on 7/12/12
"Would Spurs take advantage of that Bahamas registered status to pay less tax or not? What do you think?"
THFC have been an ENIC subsidiary for 11 yrs.
Therefore 11 yrs of opportunity.
What do the accounts over that period tell you about how THFC have been managing their profits ??
posted on 7/12/12
"I'm simply pointing out that the company structure gives certain tax benefits which would not be available if the ownership did not pass through a Bahamas registered subsidiary."
Be specific.
WHAT "benefits" ??
HOW are these benefits achieved ??
Try to keep it in the realms of real examples if you can (like a subsidiary within the Starbucks conglomerate selling from a better tax regime materials to a subsidiary operating in a higher tax regime) .
posted on 7/12/12
I'm finding it difficult to understand why me pointing out that ENIC is shrewdly run upsets you?
But you are not suggesting we are run shrewdly as you put it. You are implying that we are taking advantage of Tavistock being a registered Bahamian company! There is a big difference between those comments!
As RDBD has so expertly pointed out could you please expand on what you mean by "benefits"...............................innuendo is such an inexact science!
posted on 7/12/12
Does Dramatic need another one of these again...
posted on 7/12/12
When you incorporate in the Bahamas you get:
Complete Anonymity
No Corporate Income Tax
No Personal Income Tax
No Information Sharing
Stockholders are Not Public Record
No Tax On Corporate Shares
posted on 7/12/12
That is not innuendo, but is different to being based in the UK.
posted on 7/12/12
Dramatic,
Quick, jump in...
posted on 7/12/12
So which of that long but far from exhaustive list of advantages Bahamas based companies get over UK based ones do you think first attracted ENIC?
posted on 7/12/12
Sorry, but you appear to not understand the question.
How do Spurs, a UK based Ltd co and subsidiary of the ENIC beast, gain any tax advantages on their profits purely because the parent entity is Bahamas registered ??
posted on 7/12/12
Oh and Chicken please feel free to join in, but try to do so with intelligent contributions, not just childish smilies. The adults are talking here.
posted on 7/12/12
The adults are talking here.
============
One adult is, the other is talking rubbish, hence the .
posted on 7/12/12
RDBD
Sorry? I thought we were talking about Spurs owners being "whiter than white".
That aside, Spurs benefit in many ways, a simple one is the new stadium funding. Money will need to be raised, financial assurance given etc. All guaranteed by a company enjoying the foreign tax status I listed above.
posted on 7/12/12
To be continued, have a good weekend people.
posted on 7/12/12
Again, you don't seem to understand WTF you are talking about.
I asked a specific question. Which you either do not understand, or the answer does not support your claims.
And to kill your latest nonsence while I'm here :
The FINANCIAL MIGHT of ENIC is what provides "financial assurance" , not their registered domicile.
So I change my company domicile to the Bahamas, and suddenly the less than 70K pa max EVER, one man band Ltd co is assured of loaning millions of pounds.
posted on 7/12/12
"The FINANCIAL MIGHT of ENIC is what provides "financial assurance" , not their registered domicile."
So their registered domicile does not help ENIC maintain and extend thier "FINANCIAL MIGHT" in your opinion?
The answer to your specific question is really that last paragraph, Spurs as you rightly point out benefit from the "FINANCIAL MIGHT" and backing of the foreign registered company.
posted on 7/12/12
Really am going to the pub now, Monday people and fowl.
posted on 7/12/12
You really are clueless, ain't ya.
ENIC benefit from OWNING a PORTFOLIO of successfully performing businesses. That is WHAT a potential lender would look at, not their REGISTERED domicile.
It was really that easy, the D1ldo bros would register the s in the Bahamas, and have access to a credit tap that meant they wouldn't need to even beg Newham council to chip in.
posted on 7/12/12
Soooo much jealousy! I love it! Conjecture, wishful thinking etc.
Greaves suggests West Ham will not fill the OS, but then goes on to say that our owners simply want to get the OS so they can sell up.
But if the OS can't be filled, why would any potential owner be interested?
Or, you could listen to the Mayor of London who says West Ham's value will increase significantly due to the OS move. Who to believe: bitter Spurs fans, or those with expertise in these matters..?
Page 14 of 15
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15