Rooney's contract

[bluwes]

Brian Kidd in the Mirror sucking up to Rooney and Sturridge.

And he just had to mention City and their signings.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/england-world-cup-squad-daniel-3179651" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... el-3179651</a>

Had me worried there JRB, thought our Brian was praising Wooney and doing our boys down,

Its David Kidd

 

[Vienna_70]

Brian Kidd in the Mirror sucking up to Rooney and Sturridge.

And he just had to mention City and their signings.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/england-world-cup-squad-daniel-3179651" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... el-3179651</a>

Is that the Brian, who's also known as David?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Brian Kidd in the Mirror sucking up to Rooney and Sturridge.

And he just had to mention City and their signings.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/england-world-cup-squad-daniel-3179651" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... el-3179651</a>

Is that the Brian, who's also known as David?

"City's sheikhs" got an entirely non-racist mention, it's truly heartening to note.

 

[mcmanus]

Brian Kidd in the Mirror sucking up to Rooney and Sturridge.

And he just had to mention City and their signings.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/england-world-cup-squad-daniel-3179651" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... el-3179651</a>

That journalist must be cuckoo for coco-pops. He states Rooney is 'relatively underpaid'.

 

[Vienna_70]

Brian Kidd in the Mirror sucking up to Rooney and Sturridge.

And he just had to mention City and their signings.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/england-world-cup-squad-daniel-3179651" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... el-3179651</a>

That journalist must be cuckoo for coco-pops. He states Rooney is 'relatively underpaid'.

Because he's comparing shrek's earnings with North American sports stars.

Which is an absolutely ridiculous and totally pointless exercise, IMHO.

 

[IH8MUFC]

If that would have been City giving one of our players a 300k a week contract we would have been fucked from pillar to post,
ripped a new one, ruining football, wanting us kicked out of the league, banned from europe etc, etc.

He isn't on 300k a week.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Brian Kidd in the Mirror sucking up to Rooney and Sturridge.

And he just had to mention City and their signings.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/england-world-cup-squad-daniel-3179651" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... el-3179651</a>

Had me worried there JRB, thought our Brian was praising Wooney and doing our boys down,

Its David Kidd

'Rooney has had to fight against world class players just to get a game'

Does he mean those world greats wellbeck and Hernandez?

 

[more lazy than useless]

I posted the following in the main United thread. Only got one reply. Should have known it would get lost in there, its not the place for a serious question!

"
An attempt at a serious question here for those that have a better understanding of football finance than me;
What is the advantage to United of bulking up Rooney's wages by using image rights (assuming it's true)?
Does that likely mean he's on a % rather than a set income for the extra?
Does it work out dearer for United (than a straight forward pay rise) by the time they've included employer's contributions etc?
Are they being very clever? Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Taking a chance? Makes no meaningful difference?

Didn't Real Madrid use image rights to pay big wages/transfer fees (eg Beckham), and maybe still do?


Dubai Blue wrote:

There are considerable benefits in terms of taxable income when using image rights. Prestwich Blue will be able to explain it better, but the rate of tax is much lower on image rights than on a basic salary (or maybe even non-existent).


more lazy than useless wrote:

Thanks for the reply. Maybe I should have posted this in the 'Rooney Deal' thread, might have had (slightly) more chance of getting noticed!
"

I'm not expecting much better in this thread, but its worth a try.

Essentially the question is this- is the financial arrangement of this deal, assuming the new chunk of money comes from image rights, a good thing for United, a bad thing, or makes no real difference?

 

[aguero93:20]

I posted the following in the main United thread. Only got one reply. Should have known it would get lost in there, its not the place for a serious question!

"
An attempt at a serious question here for those that have a better understanding of football finance than me;
What is the advantage to United of bulking up Rooney's wages by using image rights (assuming it's true)?
Does that likely mean he's on a % rather than a set income for the extra?
Does it work out dearer for United (than a straight forward pay rise) by the time they've included employer's contributions etc?
Are they being very clever? Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Taking a chance? Makes no meaningful difference?

Didn't Real Madrid use image rights to pay big wages/transfer fees (eg Beckham), and maybe still do?


Dubai Blue wrote:

There are considerable benefits in terms of taxable income when using image rights. Prestwich Blue will be able to explain it better, but the rate of tax is much lower on image rights than on a basic salary (or maybe even non-existent).


more lazy than useless wrote:

Thanks for the reply. Maybe I should have posted this in the 'Rooney Deal' thread, might have had (slightly) more chance of getting noticed!
"

I'm not expecting much better in this thread, but its worth a try.

Essentially the question is this- is the financial arrangement of this deal, assuming the new chunk of money comes from image rights, a good thing for United, a bad thing, or makes no real difference?

Image rights are paid to a company instead of an individual, so they can avoid paying national insurance. Say his wages are £300,000 p/w, £15,600,000 p/a. His image rights are 50% of his wages (£7,800,000). National insurance is charged at 2% of all earnings >797 a week, 41,444 a year so they save £7,800,000 - £41,444 = £7,758,556 @ 2% = £155,171. Negligible at best tbh.
The real benefits could go to the Geriophile, if he's willing to relocate ala Bono/Depardeu before withdrawing this money to a tax haven, instead of paying 50% UK income tax he could pay 28% UK corporation tax and virtually no income tax somewhere that doesn't have legislation to cover Image rights taxation (there's a few), saving him around £1,716,000 per year of his contract or £8,580,000 over the life of the contract. Still a bit silly when you're that rich.
Sorry I saw it on the other thread, expected someone a bit more accustomed to Uk tax law to answer.

 

[-nibz-]

If that would have been City giving one of our players a 300k a week contract we would have been fucked from pillar to post,
ripped a new one, ruining football, wanting us kicked out of the league, banned from europe etc, etc.

He isn't on 300k a week.

....Says the Man U PR team. His name will be on your badge next.

Rooney > Scum