SA Footy

Yes indeed, Glenelg has millions stashed away in Swiss Bank Accounts and have cooked their books to appear to be on the bones of their arse. Quite clever really.

dedja wrote:Yes indeed, Glenelg has millions stashed away in Swiss Bank Accounts and have cooked their books to appear to be on the bones of their arse. Quite clever really.

Are you stating this as a fact

Yes, a mate of a mate who used to work with a mate said so.

johntheclaret wrote:

Maddawg wrote:True those management fees would need to be justified, remeber its not individuals its companies we are talking about! So another Glenelg associated company (are there any its all here say) would need to contract out its service and justify it, purely so that the books are telling evryone they are making a bigger loss than was actually the case. What are the benfits of increasing your loss from $100k Loss to $500K loss. I can see the benefits in decreasing profit. So makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

My company regularly charges my other company management fees.
I'm not sure of the benefits of distorting profit just to pay more tax though.

As for the rest, I have no idea what Glenelg FC is or isn't up to. I was just making a point that with numerous companies within a group and associated companies not in a group, management fees can be used to move profit around and if those associated companies have a different year end then the reality is a little more difficult to see.

I here what you are saying but you cant just transfer money between companies because it will reduce your tax debt or because you feel like it. The company being paid the income (not profit) and remember it is income not just funds, they need to justify why they earnt that income and because its an associated entity isnt a reason. For yourself it is probably simpler than that of an incorporated body as there isnt an individual who is ultimatly responsible like yourself. So the directors of the board I doubt would risk cooking the books as the financial advantage they will receive personally will certainly be out weighed by the charges that could be laid upon them for doing so.

dedja wrote:Yes, a mate of a mate who used to work with a mate said so.

As opposed to your so called indisputable facts of course.

Anyway, back in the real world and not Dedja's pixieland, maybe it is only Norwood who move money in and out of Trusts that have no obligation to report publicly.

topsywaldron wrote:

dedja wrote:Yes, a mate of a mate who used to work with a mate said so.

As opposed to your so called indisputable facts of course.

Anyway, back in the real world and not Dedja's pixieland, maybe it is only Norwood who move money in and out of Trusts that have no obligation to report publicly.

Yeah we are a bunch **** so we probably do this.

The Panthers are all but bankrupt, and staff walking out the door. Time to regroup off the field, as they have done on the field.

topsywaldron wrote:

dedja wrote:Yes, a mate of a mate who used to work with a mate said so.

As opposed to your so called indisputable facts of course.

Anyway, back in the real world and not Dedja's pixieland, maybe it is only Norwood who move money in and out of Trusts that have no obligation to report publicly.

LOL ... acquire these supernatural financial skills selling vinyl did we?

Bunton wrote:The Panthers are all but bankrupt, and staff walking out the door. Time to regroup off the field, as they have done on the field.

big call there Bunts..

dedja wrote:

topsywaldron wrote:

dedja wrote:Yes, a mate of a mate who used to work with a mate said so.

As opposed to your so called indisputable facts of course.

Anyway, back in the real world and not Dedja's pixieland, maybe it is only Norwood who move money in and out of Trusts that have no obligation to report publicly.

LOL ... acquire these supernatural financial skills selling vinyl did we?

I'll just assume you've conceded the point that some SANFL clubs massage their figures then.

I reakon you massage a portion of your figure pretty regularly.

Point me a post where I've ever denied that!

topsywaldron wrote:

dedja wrote:

topsywaldron wrote:

dedja wrote:Yes, a mate of a mate who used to work with a mate said so.

As opposed to your so called indisputable facts of course.

Anyway, back in the real world and not Dedja's pixieland, maybe it is only Norwood who move money in and out of Trusts that have no obligation to report publicly.

LOL ... acquire these supernatural financial skills selling vinyl did we?

I'll just assume you've conceded the point that some SANFL clubs massage their figures then.

Nope ...

Booney wrote:I reakon you massage a portion of your figure pretty regularly.

I think it was a required skill to be able to post in these forums??

dedja wrote:Nope ...

Then you're pretty ignorant.

Pot, kettle ...

Maddawg wrote:

johntheclaret wrote:

Maddawg wrote:True those management fees would need to be justified, remeber its not individuals its companies we are talking about! So another Glenelg associated company (are there any its all here say) would need to contract out its service and justify it, purely so that the books are telling evryone they are making a bigger loss than was actually the case. What are the benfits of increasing your loss from $100k Loss to $500K loss. I can see the benefits in decreasing profit. So makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

My company regularly charges my other company management fees.
I'm not sure of the benefits of distorting profit just to pay more tax though.

As for the rest, I have no idea what Glenelg FC is or isn't up to. I was just making a point that with numerous companies within a group and associated companies not in a group, management fees can be used to move profit around and if those associated companies have a different year end then the reality is a little more difficult to see.

I here what you are saying but you cant just transfer money between companies because it will reduce your tax debt or because you feel like it. The company being paid the income (not profit) and remember it is income not just funds, they need to justify why they earnt that income and because its an associated entity isnt a reason. For yourself it is probably simpler than that of an incorporated body as there isnt an individual who is ultimatly responsible like yourself. So the directors of the board I doubt would risk cooking the books as the financial advantage they will receive personally will certainly be out weighed by the charges that could be laid upon them for doing so.

Companies can be the trustees of trusts. You can then transfer back over to the company to limit taxation in a good year. Pay your flat company tax rate and then pay back to directors etc.. as fees you see fit (within reason) with the franking credit applied. To make the books appear better one year, do you reduce the payment of such directors and increase in following years.

Too much topsy lol in this thread.

wild dog wrote:

Maddawg wrote:

johntheclaret wrote:

Maddawg wrote:True those management fees would need to be justified, remeber its not individuals its companies we are talking about! So another Glenelg associated company (are there any its all here say) would need to contract out its service and justify it, purely so that the books are telling evryone they are making a bigger loss than was actually the case. What are the benfits of increasing your loss from $100k Loss to $500K loss. I can see the benefits in decreasing profit. So makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

My company regularly charges my other company management fees.
I'm not sure of the benefits of distorting profit just to pay more tax though.

As for the rest, I have no idea what Glenelg FC is or isn't up to. I was just making a point that with numerous companies within a group and associated companies not in a group, management fees can be used to move profit around and if those associated companies have a different year end then the reality is a little more difficult to see.

I here what you are saying but you cant just transfer money between companies because it will reduce your tax debt or because you feel like it. The company being paid the income (not profit) and remember it is income not just funds, they need to justify why they earnt that income and because its an associated entity isnt a reason. For yourself it is probably simpler than that of an incorporated body as there isnt an individual who is ultimatly responsible like yourself. So the directors of the board I doubt would risk cooking the books as the financial advantage they will receive personally will certainly be out weighed by the charges that could be laid upon them for doing so.

Companies can be the trustees of trusts. You can then transfer back over to the company to limit taxation in a good year. Pay your flat company tax rate and then pay back to directors etc.. as fees you see fit (within reason) with the franking credit applied. To make the books appear better one year, do you reduce the payment of such directors and increase in following years.

But to do this the incentive is to save tax. Sporting clubs don't pay Company Tax. So why would they pay the additional accounting fees to arrange all of this? And if they did there would be transactions reported in their books showing movements to possibly related entities that would show up in the audited reports. If this is happening in any SANFL club please supply some facts that can be checked.

dedja wrote:Pot, kettle ...

No worries, I'll let you believe you know everything about how every SANFL club operates.

You don't by the way.