Footballers face £100m meltdown

bigfreddiel

WannaBLoaded wrote: »

weren't the footballers investing in fake film companies to avoid tax?

But the point is this was advice from a professional financial advisor! What does this say about them? They did after all trouser £5,000,000 for this advice!

Cheers fj

Linton

bigfreddiel wrote: »

But the point is this was advice from a professional financial advisor! What does this say about them?

Cheers fj

Err whatever they are/were, it wasnt "professional financial advisor". You need to be regulated for that.

WannaBLoaded

bigfreddiel wrote: »

But the point is this was advice from a professional financial advisor! What does this say about them? They did after all trouser £5,000,000 for this advice!

Cheers fj

Depends, everyone needs to do their due diligence, it wouldn't take much to approach a third party and pay them for advice.

It's probably a very similar set up to how jimmy carr got away with paying 1% tax on a legal loophole.

If it was all the money they had in the world i would feel sorry but most footballers are banking hundreds of grands a month.

If you leave your kids 100k when you die that would pretty much set them up for life, never mind millions

dunstonh

They were advised by financial advisors from Kingsbridge Asset Managers, who earned more than £5m in commission to set up the investments.

Who are not financial advisers.

This firm were unregulated and dealt with unregulated/speculative investments and were not authorised to give financial advice.

Archi_Bald

WannaBLoaded wrote: »

If you leave your kids 100k when you die that would pretty much set them up for life, never mind millions

I guess it depends on your definition of "set up for life" but I reckon you'd have to die quite young if you hope that £100K would last very long, or could grow big and fast enough to make a real difference to someone's life. That would sort of put a dampener on the inheritance.

bigfreddiel

dunstonh wrote: »

Who are not financial advisers.

This firm were unregulated and dealt with unregulated/speculative investments and were not authorised to give financial advice.

Good point, but the two individuals who set up Kingsbridge, David McKee and Kevin McMenamin describe themselves as financial advisors, they had over 1,000 players and many football acadamies as clients, at one time 15% of premiership players as clients. They described these investments in the film industry introduced in 1997, as totally risk free and a no-brainer. Even HMRC never questioned the players tax returns since then until now.

So it seems Kingsbridge were operating a fantastic con all these years and a very profitable one for them. No doubt arrests will be following soon, fraud being a charge I guess, but the advisors claim in their defence that there advice and management of funds was entirely clear and legal. Only the players have them selves to blame.

Cheers fj

jimjames

bigfreddiel wrote: »

But the point is this was advice from a professional financial advisor! What does this say about them? They did after all trouser £5,000,000 for this advice!

Cheers fj

First rule - make sure you know who you are dealing with. Investing with someone who claims to be an advisor with no backup to that and no regulation is clearly a very risky business.

Fortunately IFAs are regulated so this sad story wouldn't have happened if the footballers had used a regulated company and regulated investments.

bigfreddiel wrote: »

They described these investments in the film industry introduced in 1997, as totally risk free and a no-brainer. Even HMRC never questioned the players tax returns since then until now.

Second rule. If an unregulated investment is guaranteed or claimed to be risk free then it's likely to be the opposite.

bigfreddiel

jimjames wrote: »

First rule - make sure you know who you are dealing with. Investing with someone who claims to be an advisor with no backup to that and no regulation is clearly a very risky business.

Fortunately IFAs are regulated so this sad story wouldn't have happened if the footballers had used a regulated company and regulated investments.


Second rule. If an unregulated investment is guaranteed or claimed to be risk free then it's likely to be the opposite.

Seems strange that not a single client out of the 1,000+ bothered to check! Nor their agents!

Must be a sheep mentality, or are footballers just more gullible than your average MSE'er!

There again whoever thought that the worlds largest automobile manufacturer would be knowingly cheat on emissions and fuel consumption!

Or that banks would missell ppi, or adjust libor, to name but a few!

Cheers fj

WannaBLoaded

Archi_Bald wrote: »

I guess it depends on your definition of "set up for life" but I reckon you'd have to die quite young if you hope that £100K would last very long, or could grow big and fast enough to make a real difference to someone's life. That would sort of put a dampener on the inheritance.

You wouldn't stop working and live off the 100k, would you?

For most people, being set up for life is having no or little mortgage and getting to keep the majority of their salary.

you can buy houses outright at the moment for less than 100k.

Eco_Miser

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I have no interest in football, but have no problem with the amount paid to footballers because none of it comes from me.:)

Are you sure about that? You don't pay anything to football clubs, but how about to the sponsors, and the broadcasters?