3 hours ago, Zeta said:

Good bit of business by the owners though. Sell the old stadium. Get a new one basically for free. Make their shareholders even richer.

Always thought there was dodgy stuff behind the move, who was getting money for Upton Park and was it tied in with developers for building more houses there to satisfy Central Government.

 

 

18 hours ago, Zeta said:

Good bit of business by the owners though. Sell the old stadium. Get a new one basically for free. Make their shareholders even richer.

Not really because now they don't have any real assets. 

They don't own their ground so financially the club owns next to nothing.

That they are trying to penny pinch over the sale of draft beer and Sky TV coverage in the ground tells you a lot about how cash rich they are as a club. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43504448

3 hours ago, coco said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43504448

Racism was an issue in football even before WWI!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43543273

West Ham co-owner David Sullivan used the club to avoid paying £700,000 in tax, a tribunal has ruled.

He has been told to pay back the money after it was found he deliberately tried to benefit from the transfer of £2m from his family business in 2010.

West Ham and Sullivan declined to comment although it is understood he intends to appeal against the decision.

The news emerged at a time when West Ham's board have faced protests from fans unhappy at how the club is run.

Sullivan, 68, was forced to leave the directors' box after being hit by a coin at the club's last home game, against Burnley at London Stadium.

The first-tier tax tribunal heard that Sullivan used his family business, Conegate Ltd, to buy £2m of shares in the holding company that owns West Ham.

On the same day the shares were converted to "deferred shares", which were deemed practically worthless and sold back to the holding company for £1. Conegate then used the £2m loss to reduce its tax bill by £700,000, as first reported by The Times.

• Read full details of the tax case

Tribunal judge Jane Bailey acknowledged the "overarching" reason for the transactions was to provide funds for the club.

But she added: "It is clear from our findings of fact that there was more than one way to provide funding to the football club and that one of the reasons that Mr Sullivan chose to provide funds to the football club in the specific way that transpired was so that the appellant (Sullivan) could claim a capital loss.

"Therefore we consider securing a tax advantage to have been 'one of the main purposes' of the arrangements."

Penny Ciniewicz, HM Revenue and Customs director general for customer compliance, said: "Conegate built tax structures to avoid paying the tax that was rightfully due."

West Ham say 20 fans have been banned for life following disturbances at the Burnley match on 10 March.

Additional police and stewards are likely to be in place for the Premier League home game against Southampton on Saturday.

The Hammers are currently 17th in the Premier League, one place and two points above Southampton and the relegation zone.

15 hours ago, Boyne said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43543273

West Ham co-owner David Sullivan used the club to avoid paying £700,000 in tax, a tribunal has ruled.

He has been told to pay back the money after it was found he deliberately tried to benefit from the transfer of £2m from his family business in 2010.

West Ham and Sullivan declined to comment although it is understood he intends to appeal against the decision.

The news emerged at a time when West Ham's board have faced protests from fans unhappy at how the club is run.

Sullivan, 68, was forced to leave the directors' box after being hit by a coin at the club's last home game, against Burnley at London Stadium.

The first-tier tax tribunal heard that Sullivan used his family business, Conegate Ltd, to buy £2m of shares in the holding company that owns West Ham.

On the same day the shares were converted to "deferred shares", which were deemed practically worthless and sold back to the holding company for £1. Conegate then used the £2m loss to reduce its tax bill by £700,000, as first reported by The Times.

• Read full details of the tax case

Tribunal judge Jane Bailey acknowledged the "overarching" reason for the transactions was to provide funds for the club.

But she added: "It is clear from our findings of fact that there was more than one way to provide funding to the football club and that one of the reasons that Mr Sullivan chose to provide funds to the football club in the specific way that transpired was so that the appellant (Sullivan) could claim a capital loss.

"Therefore we consider securing a tax advantage to have been 'one of the main purposes' of the arrangements."

Penny Ciniewicz, HM Revenue and Customs director general for customer compliance, said: "Conegate built tax structures to avoid paying the tax that was rightfully due."

West Ham say 20 fans have been banned for life following disturbances at the Burnley match on 10 March.

Additional police and stewards are likely to be in place for the Premier League home game against Southampton on Saturday.

The Hammers are currently 17th in the Premier League, one place and two points above Southampton and the relegation zone.

 

Awful, awful club. 

No wonder the Hammers fans hate the dildo brothers. 

I just don't understand economics.

It says they bought £2m worth of shares, to reduce the tax bill by 700k. How does that make financial sense?

Are there any business owners that don't exploit their clubs to any extent and make profits? You get your really bad owners like Hicks and Gillett for Liverpool who weren't even interested in football, just two Americans trying to scheme money. 

It is a business at the end of the day, these things are bound to happen. I think when you look at it football fans are mugs, we are loyal mugs, the ones at Arsenal Fan TV go to every game while complaining about their shareholders exploiting the club. But you're giving them owners money by going to every game, but that's loyal supporters for you. Football fans are mug consumers, it's not simply where you can just pull out and take your money elsewhere to another club so you're bound to get owners that'll take advantage of that loyalty.

Mike Ashley is a twat and he doesn't even hide the fact that he uses Newcastle for profit, but he's still taking risks and putting money into the club and attending games to watch them play. It's not ideal but it's very common and understandable in their shoes.  

22 hours ago, Zeta said:

I just don't understand economics.

It says they bought £2m worth of shares, to reduce the tax bill by 700k. How does that make financial sense?

I suppose the shares can hold their value and be sold of to make the £2m back if needed? Not too sure tbh. 

Benteke is so sh*t

Mane should be off

Incredible mane still on.

 

Incredible mane still on.
 

If he hadn't have already been booked he would definitely have been carded for that. Ref bottled it.

Klopp takes mane off. He knows they got away with one there.

Just now, Jezq8 said:

Incredible mane still on.

 

Did the ref give the freekick before handball? Seems to me the only reason he didn't get a second yellow

cmon loftus screw these motherf**kers

f**k Salah again 

Well a player we rejected coming back to bite us. And he allowed Liverpool a big pay day in getting rid of coutiniho without the team suffering.

Hands down player of the year 

Singlehandedly keeping them in Europe and in top 3 

They will get more for him than we will for Hazard guaranteed 

Zaha and Moses came through the same academy around the same time and neither has a decent final ball. 

34 minutes ago, the special one said:

Did the ref give the freekick before handball? Seems to me the only reason he didn't get a second yellow

Nope, the ref simply bottled it 

Can't see us finishing top 4. If Liverpool need a goal, Salah scores. If Spurs need a goal, Kane scores. If we need a goal... someone might score if we're lucky.

10 minutes ago, Jezq8 said:

Nope, the ref simply bottled it 

This is why no Premier League refs will be going to the world cup this summer, they are awful.

What will it take for them to realise that the standard of refs in this country isn't good enough?

3 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

This is why no Premier League refs will be going to the world cup this summer, they are awful.

What will it take for them to realise that the standard of refs in this country isn't good enough?

Not until Liverpool win the league.

So could be a while yet