Blog: Knight won't make a "penny profit" from any share sale

[hans kraay fan club]

And it would also come out of the FFP allowance.

That is my point - why would he needlessly INFLATE the losses? It would be mental.

To add insult to mentalness, he'd also pay TAX on the money he took out (which he'd first put in)!

 

[Brighton Breezy]

I thought it was a fair summary in your blog for what it's worth.

Thank you.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

FWIW I think that Walt's summary is entirely fair. What is likely to raise eyebrows is DK's own assertion about making 'not a penny profit' from the share sale. That is patently untrue, isn't it? DK didn't pay more than £1m for his shares.

Of course, if he's ploughed £2m into the club to cover operating costs, stadium fight, etc overall, then he's is right that he wouldn't be making a nett profit overall, but that isn't what the quote says.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

FWIW I think that Walt's summary is entirely fair. What is likely to raise eyebrows is DK's own assertion about making 'not a penny profit' from the share sale. That is patently untrue, isn't it? DK didn't pay more than £1m for his shares.

Of course, if he's ploughed £2m into the club to cover operating costs, stadium fight, etc overall, then he's is right that he wouldn't be making a nett profit overall, but that isn't what the quote says.

Thanks.

I don't think there is anything sinister in the wording etc. Just that he put £2million plus in but won't get anywhere near that back.

Basically, he could sell all his shares and still be out of pocket from his time at the Albion.

Did try and explain that context in the blog piece.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Thanks.

I don't think there is anything sinister in the wording etc. Just that he put £2million plus in but won't get anywhere near that back.

Basically, he could sell all his shares and still be out of pocket from his time at the Albion.

Did try and explain that context in the blog piece.

Indeed - that's what I said! Your overall piece is fair. DK own line is misleading.

 

[Creaky]

Why? It would be ludicruous to do so.

Bloom is bankrolling the operating costs of the club, to the tune of £8m per year. It is nonsensical, surely to suggest that those costs would include (made up figure) £250k payment to himself. What would be the point, when he could take no payment, and simply pay IN £250k less? I stand to be corrected if there is some clever accounting point I'm missing, but otherwise any suggestion that Bloom would take anything out (at this time) seems farcical.

Depends where the '£250K' was being financed from - if it was money sat in TB's personal bank account on which he had already paid tax then I would agree with you - if however it was coming from other sources liable for taxation and payment, via the club, also allowed for pension contributions then there could be potential tax benefits.