Because they don’t want to sell yet, they are hanging on so they don’t have to hand over a share of profits to Government.
At least their lies are out in the open now.
But why give a price you want if ya not gonna accept it? Just say “fuck off and come back in 2 years” or give a ridiculous high figure for an asking price. He’s a fuckin weirdo
Probably thought it was high enough to put off potential bidders. That is why they are now trying to discredit the consortium.
I don’t know if this lot will be any better than the current muppets tbh.
It’s not what you do it is the way that you do it.
hd1 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:15 pm
Tough choice, believe the word of Phillip Beard or David Sullivan.
Both lying shysters yet one apparently has infinitely more credibility for some reason
Because we’ve had 10 years of Sullivan’s lies and bullshit. Beard gets the benefit of the doubt and has West Ham legends within his consortium.
West Ham is just a useful vehicle to move money through for the cheeky owner.
On 26 March 2018 an HMRC tax tribunal ruled that Sullivan had used West Ham United to avoid paying £700,000 tax for his own family business, Conegate Ltd. Sullivan used Conegate to buy £2m of shares in the holding company that owns West Ham. The same day the shares were converted to "deferred shares", deemed practically worthless and sold back for £1 back to the holding company. Conegate thereby used the £2m loss to reduce its tax bill.
Because we’ve had 10 years of Sullivan’s lies and bullshit. Beard gets the benefit of the doubt and has West Ham legends within his consortium.
West Ham is just a useful vehicle to move money through for the cheeky owner.
On 26 March 2018 an HMRC tax tribunal ruled that Sullivan had used West Ham United to avoid paying £700,000 tax for his own family business, Conegate Ltd. Sullivan used Conegate to buy £2m of shares in the holding company that owns West Ham. The same day the shares were converted to "deferred shares", deemed practically worthless and sold back for £1 back to the holding company. Conegate thereby used the £2m loss to reduce its tax bill.
I mean, yeah that’s clever to be fair. But he is a slimer little scumbag ain’t he
But why give a price you want if ya not gonna accept it? Just say “fuck off and come back in 2 years” or give a ridiculous high figure for an asking price. He’s a fuckin weirdo
Probably thought it was high enough to put off potential bidders. That is why they are now trying to discredit the consortium.
I don’t know if this lot will be any better than the current muppets tbh.
I have no idea if they’re any better either mate. The bit that gives me hope is the West Ham boys amongst them. Assumed to be Cottee as one of them, I’d like to think his main focus would be the team
hd1 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:15 pm
Tough choice, believe the word of Phillip Beard or David Sullivan.
Both lying shysters yet one apparently has infinitely more credibility for some reason
I am no fan of the dwarf but looking at the complete dog's breakfast Philip Beard and Tony Fernandes made of the QPR takeover a few years back I would suggest that the short arsed stumpy little Russian wannabe might have a serious competitor in the "poor owners" stakes.
Why Is There Only One Monopolies Commission. Isn't That A Monopoly?
I think West Ham have done it.
They've actually found a craftier, more conniving, more money motivated, more property motivated, more shameless in getting the fans on board to buy the club with silly public statements person than David Sullivan to buy the club.
BlackDiamond wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:31 pm
West Ham is just a useful vehicle to move money through for the cheeky owner.
On 26 March 2018 an HMRC tax tribunal ruled that Sullivan had used West Ham United to avoid paying £700,000 tax for his own family business, Conegate Ltd. Sullivan used Conegate to buy £2m of shares in the holding company that owns West Ham. The same day the shares were converted to "deferred shares", deemed practically worthless and sold back for £1 back to the holding company. Conegate thereby used the £2m loss to reduce its tax bill.
I mean, yeah that’s clever to be fair. But he is a slimer little scumbag ain’t he
The dwarf isnt the clever one, its the tax experts/accountants/lawyers that are the "clever" ones...and what they advised here is routine run of the mill reduction of tax liabilities.
I mean, yeah that’s clever to be fair. But he is a slimer little scumbag ain’t he
The dwarf isnt the clever one, its the tax experts/accountants/lawyers that are the "clever" ones...and what they advised here is routine run of the mill reduction of tax liabilities.
Either way, still clever in my book when I don’t have the foggiest about that stuff
