Stadium | Page 4 | Vital Football

Stadium

moonay said:
Surely, reducing the amount we spend on tax is a good idea whether or not we're actually making a profit/loss.
Click to expand...
You only pay Corporation Tax (PAYE does not come into the equation) when you make a profit. WAFC have been making losses for years.
Unless there is a forecast of huge profits in the next few years to allow previous years' losses to be offset against future years' profits.
 
NZogbia's fan club said:
You only pay Corporation Tax (PAYE does not come into the equation) when you make a profit. WAFC have been making losses for years.
Unless there is a forecast of huge profits in the next few years to allow previous years' losses to be offset against future years' profits.
Click to expand...
Fair do ... though I was thinking it might be more like a "virtual covenant" type set-up.
 
Great move by Danson. It gives some publicity to a very worthy cause and is no longer named after someone with a racism conviction by the FA who flogged the football club to a bunch of money launderers and then did SFA when they went bust.
 
I imagine the main reason we're gifting the sponsorship is we've been unable to find someone willing to pay the going rate we wanted. I'm sure we could have got a sponsor if we'd have been willing to accept a lower offer but that would've set the precedent price for the future. That would be extra revenue now, but it could potentially cost us money in the long term if companies knew we'd give in and sell it below market value.

So rather than leave it as is, which doesn't really help anyone, they thought they might as well gift it to a local charity for the year to give them the exposure.

Danson could've just put one of his own companies on there but he has a history of donating money and we know he seems to be very conscious about trying to give back to the town in general. So I think donating the sponsorship probably isn't out of character. Maybe there is a benefit in terms of offsetting tax, although as N'Zog said considering we don't make profit it's harder to see exactly where we'd be able to write off the tax.

It's not a good name and we obviously were hoping for a lucrative sponsorship revenue, but without knowing exactly the situation behind the scenes (which they will never go into detail on) it's difficult to really say too much about it.
 
Last edited:
pie eater said:
Great move by Danson. It gives some publicity to a very worthy cause and is no longer named after someone with a racism conviction by the FA who flogged the football club to a bunch of money launderers and then did SFA when they went bust.
Click to expand...
Ironic really, rugby fans happy with the name and charity yet still happy to badmouth the man who helped them when they themselves were homeless.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
I imagine the main reason we're gifting the sponsorship is we've been unable to find someone willing to pay the going rate we wanted. I'm sure we could have got a sponsor if we'd have been willing to accept a lower offer but that would've set the precedent price for the future. That would be extra revenue now, but it could potentially cost us money in the long term if companies knew we'd give in and sell it below market value.

So rather than leave it as is, which doesn't really help anyone, they thought they might as well gift it to a local charity for the year to give them the exposure.

Danson could've just put one of his own companies on there but he has a history of donating money and we know he seems to be very conscious about trying to give back to the town in general. So I think donating the sponsorship probably isn't out of character. Maybe there is a benefit in terms of offsetting tax, although as N'Zog said considering we don't make profit it's harder to see exactly where we'd be able to write off the tax.

It's not a good name and we obviously were hoping for a lucrative sponsorship revenue, but without knowing exactly the situation behind the scenes (which they will never go into detail on) it's difficult to really say too much about it.
Click to expand...
Very true, but even if we can offset tax from it I wouldn't have thought it would come close to what a full stadium rebrand would cost which begs the question that since apparently we're still in a very perilous financial state, why and if it's not going to negatively impact us financially who's paying.
 
Whelans broken leg said:
I can’t do nothing about paying income tax. But can stop my season ticket any time. Bit of difference there don’t you think. I’m not against any local charity. But like to know were my money goes that’s all
Click to expand...
So I guess you will be stopping your season ticket then - The Brick helps everyone and doesn't differentiate between race or colour but I guess you do ?
 
garyteale said:
Very true, but even if we can offset tax from it I wouldn't have thought it would come close to what a full stadium rebrand would cost which begs the question that since apparently we're still in a very perilous financial state, why and if it's not going to negatively impact us financially who's paying.
Click to expand...

They have obviously had to change the signs on the stadium, but other than that i'm not sure there is going to be much other significant expenditure. I wouldn't have thought that would be huge cost.

As we are gifting them 12 months of valuable the exposure maybe even the Brick paid for the cost of replacing the signage. But if we are paying for it, it's probably costing less than we pay out to our big earners over a week or two.

We know the ownership are determined to keep the costs sensible, so if this move was detrimental to the clubs finances we probably wouldn't have done it.
 
P
king_dezeeuw06 said:
They have obviously had to change the signs on the stadium, but other than that i'm not sure there is going to be much other significant expenditure. I wouldn't have thought that would be huge cost.

As we are gifting them 12 months of valuable the exposure maybe even the Brick paid for the cost of replacing the signage. But if we are paying for it, it's probably costing less than we pay out to our big earners over a week or two.

We know the ownership are determined to keep the costs sensible, so if this move was detrimental to the clubs finances we probably wouldn't have done it.
Click to expand...
Please refer to post 53.
 
True although imagine it would add up, signage, new logo being designed, website updated, tickets being updated etc. Noticed that all of the street signs have had the DW bit taped over now which I can't imagine would be done for free by the council. I'd have thought it would soon add up to £100k or more.

Like you say I can't see them having done it if it was going to be detrimental and possibly the Brick have paid for some of it but first impression was that it seemed a strange thing to do given our circumstances.
 
pie eater said:
Great move by Danson. It gives some publicity to a very worthy cause and is no longer named after someone with a racism conviction by the FA who flogged the football club to a bunch of money launderers and then did SFA when they went bust.
Click to expand...

Still, a much better name than the Stadium of Shite.

Ironic really that the chubby chasers are now happy its named after a homeless charity instead of a man who stopped them being homeless. Their lack of intellect astounds, though doesn’t surprise.
 
garyteale said:
True although imagine it would add up, signage, new logo being designed, website updated, tickets being updated etc. Noticed that all of the street signs have had the DW bit taped over now which I can't imagine would be done for free by the council. I'd have thought it would soon add up to £100k or more.

Like you say I can't see them having done it if it was going to be detrimental and possibly the Brick have paid for some of it but first impression was that it seemed a strange thing to do given our circumstances.
Click to expand...

With it only being a year i dont think there will be an extensive brand reset on everything to only change it again.

Other than the stadium signage that they couldn't avoid, the logo is just the Brick's existing one so no design cost there, they will easily be able to change the logo on new tickets and other printed materials. I imagine the taped over DW is probably the extent of the street signage changes and was probably just done around the stadium in a couple of hours by one council employee.

My guess would be they'd probably not be looking to spend much compared to if it was a paid sponsor on a long term deal who would expect a lot more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.