I hope they sign Grealish and Kane.
It will make beating them and winning the league so much sweeter.
Hate these cheating FuckCunts
Maybe we should have some system where any transfer over Ā£1m mandates the buying club into paying an additional 10% to a charity or charities chosen by the Premier League.
Weird idea -and Iāve not really thought it through - but if we had the PL have an official partnership with a homeless charity or poverty relief charity imagine how much good that could do every year.
5 Likes
ā¦and yet you have people supporting/rationalizing this atrocity
How Man City can afford to sign both Kane and Grealish for more than Ā£200m
It was sarcastically retelling of a Pep comment from a couple of years back when he tried to deny Citeh were buying their success
On the topic of insane wealth.
I read the Forbes Billionaire lost the other day. Looked at it over 10 years and over a ten year period Bill Gates wealth double from something like 70 odd BILLION to 140 odd BILLION.
Fucking BILLION - with a B!
Insane how this world still has a ā3rd worldā
(Not knocking gates - I realise he gives away millions per year - but itās insane isnāt it)
1 Like
Well, that probably has something to do with a handful of people controlling national assets and spending the money on football clubs in other countries rather than the needs of the people in their own countries.
The FA apply a levy of 5% to all transfer fees and this is supposed to go into community projects and grass roots football. The mechanism is already there so perhaps it should be tiered like Stamp Duty and distributed more widely to more charitable endeavours? 5% for transfers up to Ā£20m. 7.5% on the amount over Ā£20m to Ā£50m. 10% on the amount over Ā£50m. 15% on the amount over Ā£100m?
Grealish at Ā£100m would then require City to pay Ā£8.25m to the FA for distribution.
Kane at Ā£140m would generate Ā£14.25m.
?
3 Likes
Yeah but then youād just get them agreeing deals at Ā£99,999,995
1 Like
So? Isnāt pressure on fee inflation a good thing?
2 Likes
Baseball has a luxury tax where there is no salary cap per se, but any team who exceeds the annual salary limit has to pay what is essentially a rate of interest on their excess into a pot, and that pot gets distributed among the rest of the league. Itās a way to mitigate the on field effect of the big market teamsā excess spending power. Something similar on transfers, where instead of it going to the other teams going to some grass roots cause would make a lot of sense to me.
1 Like
If thatās the intention yes, if itās to increase funds to charity/grassroots, then the clubs will just use creative deal structures to avoid having to pay the extra.
2 Likes
But in the scenario I set out the difference in the levy payable between a fee of Ā£99,999,995 and one of Ā£100,000,001 would be 65p, so hardly gaming the system.
4 Likes
Would all additional clauses be subject to the same or just the initial free?
The total amount payable under the transfer agreement is subject to the levy currently so Iād keep that unchanged.
Is that a yes or a no?
Eh? The total amount payable under the transfer agreementā¦whatever the buying club has to ultimately pay the selling club arising from the terms of the transfer. This includes all payments under all clauses. Everything. The whole lot. When payments are made they attract a levy except for if the base transfer fee is payable in instalments. In those incidents the levy on the full base fee remains payable at the outset.
So if itās paid in installments they wouldnāt have to pay the ācharity taxā?
How do you infer that from my post? 
Because I misread it?
1 Like
Itās a good idea to tax transfer fees, especially the big ones we see in the major leagues, with the PL as a stand-out. Paying 100m for one player is morally wrong when you have still so much poverty everywhere.
But Iām afraid that if such a system was put in place, clubs (owned by billionaires, lest we forget) would start to apply player swap deals involving less money. They would structure the deals, invent special clauses etc. In short, theyād do the same as what they do for their own fortunes, and for the companies owned by them: avoid paying taxes whatever the means.