My guess is that most of these players will have some tax avoidance schemes in place that protects their earnings from the grasp of the taxman . The very rich have always paid less tax than the very poor.PFA should know full well of the scenarios here.
Scenario 1
Player A takes a 30% wage cut as a salary waiver which would need to be effective for tax purposes. Say player A is on £100k per week. A salary waiver would mean his salary would reduce to £70k per week with PAYE and NI on the £70k. The £30k would remain with the club (to do with as they please and who is to say that it would be passed on). This would reduce the tax and ni to the government on the basis that tax and ni could only be charged on £70k but would leave the club better off by £30k per week. This seems to be where the PFA are at.
However...
Scenario 2
Player A continued to receive £100k per week (i.e. with no salary waiver). The PAYE and NI would be paid in the same amount (on the £100k) to the government (and therefore keeping the contribution to the government the same) but the player might agree to making a donation (say 30%) out of net salary. The difference being that the player then has more control over where the money goes.
PFA must know scenario 2 is is doable and to suggest that the government might be out of pocket is risable to say the least.
My guess is that most of these players will have some tax avoidance schemes in place that protects their earnings from the grasp of the taxman . The very rich have always paid less tax than the very poor.
Can see it being held behind closed doors in the summer - maybe Mid to late may over 2 months. Will give the country a semblance of something to do watching games on TV.
The British ones won’t, because they are domiciled here, which is important in tax terms.
many of the others will have separate contracts for image rights. If you are Sergio Aguero, and the club pays you £1m a year for the use of your image rights, it can do so without you being in England to do it. So that can be paid to Sergio Aguero inc, an Argentinian company, and no UK tax is payable. His playing contract however, which will be the bulk of of income, is something that can only be performed in England, in the sense that that’s where his employer is based. So he will pay the same proportion of UK tax on his basic income as any other high earner.
all top players however receive performance related bonuses. It was part of the drive to comply with FFP to move away from higher basic wages onto greater performance related bonuses. So every week that goes by when a player doesn’t play, or score, or come on as a sub, or whatever, is a bite out of their normal earnings. The players are losing out on that income, HMG is losing out on the tax they would pay on that.
So many of them have already taken something close to a 30% cut to their usual income anyway.
God that’d be fantastic!
This is an occasion for City to distance ourselves from the money-grabbing cartel in the public perception without being remotely cynical or opportunistic. I hope we take it.
The very thing they despise us for (a wealthy owner). I bet they all wished their clubs had one of them now to keep the wolf from their door.
It's not so much the wealth of the owner I don't think, it's the cynicism of unloading costs onto the taxpayer aggravated by doing so whilst lecturing City on right and wrong financial and business models. In my view City should make the point and make it loud and clear.
To coin a phrase, we can do what we want if the owner is prepared to back us. If so, I'd like to see us put out a press release that we will be paying 100% to all staff for the duration saying something like "we realise that this may lead to the club failing to meet UEFA's "Financial Fair Play" regulations but, sometimes, it is better to do the right thing"
Imagine the piss-boiling.