Footballers face £100m meltdown

Glen_Clark

Eco_Miser wrote: »

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

Fair point. I don't have a TV licence http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/money-saving-tips/10925912/The-legal-way-to-avoid-paying-the-TV-licence-fee.html and I don't pay extra for goods because they sponsor football. But I suppose a little of the money I spend on goods might go indirectly to football clubs.
When people pay £50 for a £10 shirt because it has the name of a football club on I think it says something about them they don't realise. Professionals are paid to advertise, wheras mugs pay to advertise. I wouldn't buy that overpriced crap, my clothes are from Primark and I don't care what people think about that as I have no need to impress anybody, but if I had kids who wanted it because all the other kids had it then I might have to.

dunstonh

People do silly things due to their greed. Unregulated investments are often marketed in ways that could never be used by regulated investments. Look at how many times we see low knowledge consumers on this board (in respect of investing) asking about unregulated investments. We issue the warnings yet many still carry on considering it and some go on to invest in them. Greed is the reason. That 12% guaranteed return which isnt guaranteed but it doesnt matter as the greed has them focused on that 12%.

Property was one of the things involved in this mess. Pre-credit crunch, many people forgot the risks or property and thought it was an easy one way street to make money. Property requires no regulation and has virtually no consumer protection.

When unregulated investments go wrong, then the people start moaning about it. However, the safety nets that are in place should not be there as why should regulated firms have to pay for unregulated? It is the regulated firms that pay the bill for consumer protection. Unregulated firms pay nothing. Consumers using regulated products pay charges and fees that go towards covering the regulatory protections. Consumers that use unregulated investments pay nothing towards that.

bigfreddiel

Why is it that HMRC are only now investigating these investments, when all the footballers have been making tax returns? After all this type of investment has been available for the last 18 years?

Curious fj

bigfreddiel

So if Kingsbridge had been a regulated company what recourse would you have in this misselling scenario?

Cheers fj

kidmugsy

WannaBLoaded wrote: »

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

Not where I live, nor in the parts of the country that would give the hypothetical children the best chance of a well paid job. £100k would be a very useful deposit though.

WannaBLoaded

kidmugsy wrote: »

Not where I live, nor in the parts of the country that would give the hypothetical children the best chance of a well paid job. £100k would be a very useful deposit though.

Are you off your tits? in birmingham you can buy a nice house for that.

Go to scotland and you can buy houses for 20k.

dunstonh

bigfreddiel wrote: »

So if Kingsbridge had been a regulated company what recourse would you have in this misselling scenario?

Cheers fj

Ranging from zero to £150k.

Things like property wouldnt come into it. Unregulated collectives could but if they were sold by regulated advisers and shown to be the wrong advice (failure of the unregulated investment does not mean it was mis-sold - wealthy investors allocating small amounts to speculative unregulated investments is not normally classed as bad advice).

racing_blue

WannaBLoaded wrote: »

Are you off your tits? in birmingham you can buy a nice house for that. Go to scotland and you can buy houses for 20k.

If by asking "are you off your tits" you mean "do you you live in the south of England" then my answer would be yes.

gardner1

as a side note it made laugh when watching the football league highlights on Saturday
the presenter asked his studio guests "how can Bolton be £197m in debt" with a straight face
easy answer....you have been paying very average players way to much in salaries and sign on fees going back years ....then same players can lose it on stupid schemes like this

bigfreddiel

dunstonh wrote: »

Ranging from zero to £150k.

Things like property wouldnt come into it. Unregulated collectives could but if they were sold by regulated advisers and shown to be the wrong advice (failure of the unregulated investment does not mean it was mis-sold - wealthy investors allocating small amounts to speculative unregulated investments is not normally classed as bad advice).

So had Kingsbridge been regulated (lost that status in 2003 according to the FCA site) what would the claim be for those who have become a victim of HMRC APPEARING to move the goalposts?

Of course I may have misunderstood the actual problem, but isn't it the tax demands from HMRC that's causing the problem?

Just curious, cheers fj