• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Canning Town Bingo Club

paxtonwolf said:
As opposed to Karren Brady, who I dont think I would get behind....
Click to expand...
q0s6j.jpg
 
I thought when West Ham ended up with the bricky deal they have that I'd find it hilarious but I don't think it's fair in the slightest. I feel bad for them now.
 
thfcsteff said:
The visual is thoroughly disturbing.
On another tack, what parent let's their daughter dress like that?
Click to expand...

Her mother encouraged her lingerie modelling career. She also refused to pay her daughters student loans because it is better for her to earn her own money and be independent.
 
David Sullivan used West Ham to illegally avoid paying £700k tax

David Sullivan illegally avoided £700,000 in tax as he funnelled money into West Ham United after his purchase of the club, The Times can reveal. Sullivan, 69, has been ordered to pay back the money after a court ruled that he deliberately tried to benefit from the transfer of £2 million from his family company in 2010.

...
The first-tier tax tribunal heard that, in 2010, Sullivan used his family business, Conegate Ltd, to buy £2 million of shares in the holding company that owns West Ham. On the same day the shares were converted to “deferred shares”, which were deemed worthless and sold back to the holding company for £1. Conegate Ltd then used the £2 million loss to reduce its tax bill by £700,000.

Tax law states that a loss cannot be used to reduce a tax bill if the main or one of the main purposes of the arrangement is to secure a tax advantage. The judges’ ruling states: “It is clear from our findings of fact that there was more than one way to provide funding to the football club and that one of the reasons that Mr Sullivan chose to provide funds to the football club in the specific way that transpired was so that the appellant could claim a capital loss. Therefore we consider securing a tax advantage to have been ‘one of the main purposes’ of the arrangements.”

The judgment is likely to further the impression among some fans that Sullivan’s involvement in the club is motivated by money rather than support for the team. This month the club reported a record £43 million profit, including a £28 million profit on player sales. Last year, The Sunday Times Rich list said Sullivan’s wealth was £1.1 billion. The judgment is far from his or West Ham’s first run-in with the authorities.

In 2009, he was arrested as part of a police investigation into allegations of fraud and false accounting over transfers made when he owned Birmingham City. He was later told that no further action would be taken.

Last year, dozens of tax officials raided West Ham’s stadium in an international criminal investigation into suspected income-tax fraud.

Penny Ciniewicz, of HM Revenue & Customs, said: “Conegate built tax structures to avoid paying the tax that was rightfully due.”
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back