PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[pirate]

I’m not a great supporter of private education but in a free country, you can’t go around banning things just because you don’t like them. It seems to me that it is unfair to charge VAT on private school fees while all supplies to LA schools are VAT free.

just think about that for a minute
who receives the VAT?
Who pays for the supplies to the LA schools?
the answer to both is the government, charging vat to LA school supplies just adds admin fees with no benefit to anyone

 

[manimanc]

Full link to the Times article here:

https://archive.ph/AFb5z

There are a few different FOI requests and responses revealed.

Slaphead trying to stay relevant when in reality he hasn't got a fuckin clue what is going on.

 

[KS55]

just think about that for a minute
who receives the VAT?
Who pays for the supplies to the LA schools?
the answer to both is the government, charging vat to LA school supplies just adds admin fees with no benefit to anyone

The sensible answer therefore would be not to charge private schools, then.

 

[citizen_maine]

just think about that for a minute
who receives the VAT?
Who pays for the supplies to the LA schools?
the answer to both is the government, charging vat to LA school supplies just adds admin fees with no benefit to anyone

There's a thread for this

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

There's a thread for this

Honestly some bloody posters ! :)

 

[denislawsbackheel]

I’m not a great supporter of private education but in a free country, you can’t go around banning things just because you don’t like them. It seems to me that it is unfair to charge VAT on private school fees while all supplies to LA schools are VAT free.

Nobody has banned anything!

 

[KS55]

Nobody has banned anything!

Eh?

 

[Dribble]

Debt is permitted as a means of raising capital for investment in all sectors of the economy. It may run into difficulties if it were part of a series of regulations to guarantee sustainability, but "the cartel" would certainly vote against any restrictions on debt. That in turn may lead to action from clubs who would question why debt was allowed but owner investment was limited quite severely. So, difficulty passing the rules and legal wrangles if they did get passed. The problem is that nearly everyone sees the need for regulation but none can agree on those measures which are required.

It's this simple... Any debt where the repayment is over ⅓ of a clubs annual turnover CAN'T be levied against clubs, & MUST be levied PERSONALLY against the club's ownership.

The thought of bailiffs taking off the door to an owner's mansion, will certainly protect clubs by ending profligate spending, & reckless risk taking, without stunting responsible owner investment.

When the smog clears, I honestly believe this is the logical place where football governance will end up, whether the cartel clubs like it or not.

 

[Maly]

just think about that for a minute
who receives the VAT?
Who pays for the supplies to the LA schools?
the answer to both is the government, charging vat to LA school supplies just adds admin fees with no benefit to anyone

The UK taxpayer pays for supplies to schools

Schools do get charged VAT by suppliers mate, but they claim it back

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

It's this simple... Any debt where the repayment is over ⅓ of a clubs annual turnover CAN'T be levied against clubs, & MUST be levied PERSONALLY against the club's ownership.

The thought of bailiffs taking off the door to an owner's mansion, will certainly protect clubs by ending profligate spending, & reckless risk taking, without stunting responsible owner investment.

When the smog clears, I honestly believe this is the logical place where football governance will end up, whether the cartel clubs like it or not.

Sure the Glazers will be only too happy to go along with it.