The Roy Barry Fan Club

Pleased to see this.

Probably down to two or three loans now

Una paloma blanca - George Baker It's a small, small world (Disney) I'm too sexy for my shirt -- right said Fred. And the dreadful Birdie Song

Really decent bloke -- delighted for him

Keep buying the season tickets boys: keep buying the season tickets!

VAT is payable on UK transfer fees but not international ones , under usual circumstances. They are normally quoted as the VAT exclusive amount, as for these purposes VAT is merely a cash flow matter for the payer. Thus if a transfer fee was £250k, it will attract £50k of VAT, and be shown as such on the invoice. If the fee was quoted in the press it would be £250k. Team A (Hibs) would pay team B (Dunfermline) £300k (£250k plus £50k VAT). Team A would account for £50k of VAT input tax on its quarterly tax return, and offset that against its VAT outputs -- such as the VAT due on season ticket sales. The amount due to HMRC would therefore be reduced by £50k. Team B would receive £300k but only £250k would be credited to the accounts, whilst £50k would be credited to the VAT account. This would be paid over to the HMRC on a quarterly VAT return in compliance with the invoice (which would show VAT), less any VAT inputs in that quarter i.e. VAT on invoices paid -- such as say e.g. costs of maintenance for the stadium performed by a VAT registered trader. Corporation tax is not an issue for DAFC -- the brought forward tax losses will run into tens of millions. One of the very few benefits from the Masterton era. Hope that helps.

Completely unacceptable to me. It would institutionalise the privileged position of two clubs over the other members of the League

There are still a lot of imponderables. For example: Will the Scottish government agree to allow a proportion of the ground to be filled as a half way house to normality? If so what %. (25% would be close to 3,000 at EEP). What procedures such as entry/exit/designated seats/stewarding would be required? When might a vaccine be available for the general population? What will be the level of virus be in three months? (and the R number?) Can we have season tickets which are part video stream for behind door games, and part for normal attendance? Costs of testing? Financial support available? Pity the poor Board who have to work with all of this. Brian Jackson (who I have known slightly for many years, and rather better in 2013) made the point that all that sensible football Boards can do right now is to get their cost base down as much as absolutely possible at this stage. That's why DAFC have followed the path that they have. It's not easy and won't win you friends in certain circles, especially of the media. Hunker down and see what the prospects are as the facts emerge. Then move quickly. Line up possible routes of action, and talk to people regarding various outcomes.

KS: I wouldn't worry about having a go at RM. I'm sure he understands what was motivating people. That's why I think he gave the Courier interview -- to clarify that it was just a business risk issue, and that was all. Da-go: agree with your comments. All that I would add is that every time Amy McDonald makes a fuss it is more likely. Just one or two small clubs on their own, not probable. The whole league structure, for the reasons cited by Amy, then much more chance.

Raith Rovers have very wisely amended what they said a few days ago, and which Da-go refers to. It now stresses that no decision has been taken at this point as to long term employability because of uncertainty with league football. Sensible damage limitation. In terms of HMRC, they will be looking retrospectively. Could be a long time as all their investigative staff are currently redeployed to mainstream work. Much depends on fact patterns but if you have all your staff on 100 per cent, and then switch those on new monthly contacts to 80 per cent ( fully government money) until 31 July, and all those people then go, well it's pretty blatant. Also what has been said by the club publicly? How many are normally retained at the end of a season? Is there a going to be a reserve league for younger players? BJ stressed tonight in London that companies who know they are losing staff permanently, and do not intend to retain, should not soak the taxpayer for a couple of months of a golden handshake (or even a brass one). For me this is not a moral issue. Rather it is a business risk one.

Most unfortunate wording I would have thought -- from a business risk perspective.

I totally get why folk might be a bit dismayed that we decided not to put the 17 leaving on 80% for a further month or two if we could do so a nil cost to the Club. All very reasonable comments on this site. The issue would have been very stark for DAFC because we have paid our staff 100% of salary throughout (you can pay 80% only or even try and persuade the players to reduce salaries -- as Hearts have done]. Then we'd have 17 guys out of contract getting 80%, on a month contract and leaving in a short time frame. There is a widely drawn anti-avoidance clause in the legislation which catches anything which is not for the purpose of the scheme. The scheme is to retain employment. Have we got any real intention of retaining their employment? For example nine of the laddies played reserve team football and what prospect is there for any reserve team next year? It is a grey area but if HMRC come back to us (and the scheme will be policed retrospectively) we are exposed to the full grant paid over, and in all probability interest and penalties (as it is a Treasury Provision attached to a 2020 Covid Virus Act). Some clubs will gamble, some will not. I don't feel really good about casting doubt on clubs like Ayr who may have come to a different view. Good luck to them is my thought. Generally I would say that the DAFC Board (of which I am not a member) will always try to do the right thing from a moral perspective if it can, and has access to some good financial, tax and legal advice at nil cost from half a dozen guys -- but I would say that wouldn't I? Anyway I think it would be a good assumption that advice has been taken on the point. We appear to eb thinking down the same lines as Ross County on this. [GG is a sound ----, but he was a teacher for any awfy long time , so he has his own style................😉]. To be frank, I worry quite a lot -- and I'm more worried about whether we can pay our staff 100% until football comes back -- whenever that is.

I most definitely agree that it would have been good to show compassion in these difficult times in relation to the players who were leaving. We've certainly done so for all of our people since March: by paying 100% to our furloughed staff and not reducing their take home pay to 80% or indeed asking the players to reduce their salaries. It might be worth considering whether the Club has obtained advice as to the operation of the Job Retention Scheme. Perhaps it might be in line with the advice received by Ross County per the P and J article? That suggests that under the regulations there may be a problem using the furlough scheme for players who will not be retained otherwise.

Well its not cost neutral if we treat all the players the same --It would cost 20% of the wage bill, plus a 100% for any players' salaries above the capped amount, for those players who have currently been let go. If we pay 80% of the salary and contribute nothing (and less than 80% for those above above the cap) to the players who are out of contract, then we are treating the players overtly differently. There are practical and ethical issues with this -- see above Above all, it really points up that we would then be using the furlough scheme to fund players who we do not intend to retain. Everyone will have a different ethical and tax risk perspective on this -- Roy McGregor gives his at https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/sport/football/ross-county/2209884/staggies-will-not-exploit-furlough-scheme-for-out-of-contract-players-says-macgregor/ We have fulfilled our contractual obligations (when many companies have not) to pay full pay since March, and that has been a considerable effort. None of this is any comfort for professional footballers who find themselves with no contract -- and that situation is likely to last for a lot longer than a month sadly.

I am by no means convinced that the economics of playing behind closed doors in the Championship will work -- certainly for more than a very limited period. That points the absolute need to get back to conventional football with live crowds as soon as possible. When the government will permit this is anyone's guess at present.