Has the transfer embargo been lifted?

[Animal is a Ram]

Cardiff now been added to the naughty list, also for defaulting on player fee instalments.

[Spanish]

6 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

Cardiff now been added to the naughty list, also for defaulting on player fee instalments.

Do we have to check the list by the hour? ?

[Sparkle]

32 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

Cardiff now been added to the naughty list, also for defaulting on player fee instalments.

At this rate someone will go above us by Christmas!

[RoyMac5]

Is this new?

[Ken Tram]

Does anyone know how many free out-of-contract players we could sign under the embargo rules?

The EFL embargo webpage seemed to say that we can give new contacts, to take us up to 23 first-team players, not including academy players, as follows:

- 12-month contracts to new players, who don't currently have a contract with anyone.

- 6-month loan contracts.

Edited July 11, 2021 by Ken Tram

[G STAR RAM]

On 07/07/2021 at 19:50, QuitYourJibbaJivin said:

Regarding the HMRC payments, surely if we’re not filing accounts with them how can we be paying tax?

 

On 07/07/2021 at 19:54, Ken Tram said:

Have to pay taxes! HMRC can shut down businesses super-quick! 

Isn't there some rule that if one is not sure how much tax to pay, they are supposed to pay more and argue it later? Some sort of catchall rule!

 

On 07/07/2021 at 22:49, Tamworthram said:

Presumably it's VAT which isn't dependent on filing our annual accounts. It can't be corporation tax after all as we don't make any profits to be taxed on.

 

On 08/07/2021 at 07:23, metalsheep02 said:

It could be PAYE income tax and National Insurance on players' wages?

 

On 08/07/2021 at 09:06, CBRammette said:

Presumably we like many many businesses have entered into payment agreements with HMRC if necessary.  However if like EFL's stance on their rules trumping government rules on relaxation of delayed filing dates, that probably wouldnt matter anyway. 

It certainly won't be corporation tax, this is only paid on profits and we have huge accumulated losses carried forward.

Unlikely to be VAT as we will have had next to no income. (HMRC do have a deferment scheme, so it is possible that we made use of this for an historic amount).

Much more likely to be PAYE. Pretty sure I read this somewhere and that it amounts to £20m owing to HMRC. Also fits in with thr story that MM was only putting in £1m a month to cover the wages, when the total bill was likely to be double that.

[CBRammette]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

 

 

 

 

It certainly won't be corporation tax, this is only paid on profits and we have huge accumulated losses carried forward.

Unlikely to be VAT as we will have had next to no income. (HMRC do have a deferment scheme, so it is possible that we made use of this for an historic amount).

Much more likely to be PAYE. Pretty sure I read this somewhere and that it amounts to £20m owing to HMRC. Also fits in with thr story that MM was only putting in £1m a month to cover the wages, when the total bill was likely to be double that.

Yes that was already mentioned on these endless threads. It must have been agreed with HMRC though or they wouldnt have paid any furlough claims to us. 

[RoyMac5]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Much more likely to be PAYE. Pretty sure I read this somewhere and that it amounts to £20m owing to HMRC. Also fits in with thr story that MM was only putting in £1m a month to cover the wages, when the total bill was likely to be double that.

Seen it on Twitter. How is it likely to be that much? 

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Seen it on Twitter. How is it likely to be that much? 

It certainly wasnt Twitter where I read it as I am not on there so would have been a news article somewhere.

£20m over a year is £1.67m a month.

If MM was having to put £1.4m a month in to cover the net wages, then this figure would not be too far out.

[RoyMac5]

8 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

It certainly wasnt Twitter where I read it as I am not on there so would have been a news article somewhere.

£20m over a year is £1.67m a month.

If MM was having to put £1.4m a month in to cover the net wages, then this figure would not be too far out.

Would HMRC have let it get that large a debt?

[Carnero]

9 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

It certainly wasnt Twitter where I read it as I am not on there so would have been a news article somewhere.

£20m over a year is £1.67m a month.

If MM was having to put £1.4m a month in to cover the net wages, then this figure would not be too far out.

I think it was mentioned in one of the Daily Mail stories, £20m to HMRC + £17.5m to MSD + Cocu's payoff + Keogh's payoff. Whether true or not, who knows, but it's the Daily Mail which always needs taking with a pinch of salt!

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, Carnero said:

I think it was mentioned in one of the Daily Mail stories, £20m to HMRC + £17.5m to MSD + Cocu's payoff + Keogh's payoff. Whether true or not, who knows, but it's the Daily Mail which always needs taking with a pinch of salt!

Thanks, knew I had read it somewhere.

[G STAR RAM]

7 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Would HMRC have let it get that large a debt?

What would be the alternative?

HMRC have been pretty good with not putting more unnecessary pressure on struggling businesses.

[RadioactiveWaste]

13 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

What would be the alternative?

HMRC have been pretty good with not putting more unnecessary pressure on struggling businesses.

I think the Covid times have led to more flexibility that would be usual.

HMRC putting football clubs out of business (or any business really) not really a vote winner, so probably some influence along the lines of chase it up later, just keep tabs on what's owed for now.

[CBRammette]

3 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I think the Covid times have led to more flexibility that would be usual.

HMRC putting football clubs out of business (or any business really) not really a vote winner, so probably some influence along the lines of chase it up later, just keep tabs on what's owed for now.

Huge number of employers have time to pay arrangements through pandemic. Fine as long as we stick to agreement 

[Dean (hick) Saunders]

If we genuinely do have £20M tax bill then it surely must be admin or sale (new owners paying) soon? Don’t think MM can/will run the club himself for many months in this scenario.

[swanny]

are we leaving the tax bill until after the accounts have been submitted, leaving this 20mil out to reduce losses and then put it into the next set of ffp annual figures?

[Tamworthram]

34 minutes ago, swanny said:

are we leaving the tax bill until after the accounts have been submitted, leaving this 20mil out to reduce losses and then put it into the next set of ffp annual figures?

If think you’re confusing profit and loss with cash flow. As I understand it (I stand to be corrected), tax liabilities (almost certainly PAYE in our case as discussed at length) would be applied to the P&L in the accounting period it was incurred regardless of when you paid it. Therefore, delaying payment might help your cash flow but it wouldn’t impact you P&L. 
 

Any accountants out there please keep me honest.

[Ghost of Clough]

As people know, there are different types of embargo. Usually known as only 'soft' and 'hard' embargoes.

As it turns out, if we were under an embargo just for P&S reasons alone then the 'established player' rule kicks in, which would allow us to sign more players. This rule means only players aged 21 and above AND named in the starting XI 5 times of a senior competition (excluding non-league) count towards the maximum number of 23 players. We currently have only 10 players who fall under this category. I believe this is the commonly referred to 'soft embargo'

However, as we have been put under an embargo for reasons which aren't relating to P&S (HMRC, transfer installments) we've been put under much stricter controls, which is where the 'professional standing' rule is used. I believe this is what is a 'hard embargo' - if it isn't then I'd hate to be under one. This means any player to have appeared in any game is counted towards the squad limit - we currently stand at 27.

Forget about getting the accounts in, the most important thing is closing out the HMRC and installment(s). At least then, we'd be able to sign someone.

[chadlad]

4 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

As people know, there are different types of embargo. Usually known as only 'soft' and 'hard' embargoes.

As it turns out, if we were under an embargo just for P&S reasons alone then the 'established player' rule kicks in, which would allow us to sign more players. This rule means only players aged 21 and above AND named in the starting XI 5 times of a senior competition (excluding non-league) count towards the maximum number of 23 players. We currently have only 10 players who fall under this category. I believe this is the commonly referred to 'soft embargo'

However, as we have been put under an embargo for reasons which aren't relating to P&S (HMRC, transfer installments) we've been put under much stricter controls, which is where the 'professional standing' rule is used. I believe this is what is a 'hard embargo' - if it isn't then I'd hate to be under one. This means any player to have appeared in any game is counted towards the squad limit - we currently stand at 27.

Forget about getting the accounts in, the most important thing is closing out the HMRC and installment(s). At least then, we'd be able to sign someone.

Any idea how much we owe HMRC and what instalments are outstanding and for which players. Apologies if this has already been stated on the thread.