Have we signed Paulo Dybala yet?

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Park Lane Mark Twain said:
Quick question to anyone that knows the answer. Can we signna player on a pre-agreement? For example continue to negotiate with Juve and his image rights team, agree something in let's say a month and then get him in 1st January? I'm pretty sure Real had a pre-agreement with Militao and Bayern with Pavard and Hernandez. If time was an issue and all parties are up for this, we should and can't let an opportunity to sign someone like him pass by.

If we genuinely wanted him, we'd still be in for him even if that means we lump the money in Jan.

Another question, do Juve need the money now or is early 2020 OK does anyone know? I'm pretty sure FFP accounts run May to April don't they?
Click to expand...
As long as juve are open to us negotiating I am pretty certain we can, transfer window is for registering players.
 
r-u-s-x said:
Not sure that's right

www.espn.co.uk

Mohamed Salah image rights dispute Q & A

Mohamed Salah claims he was "deeply insulted" by an image rights dispute in his native Egypt.
www.espn.co.uk www.espn.co.uk
Click to expand...
Image rights schemes - third party ownership for example - are largely about avoiding tax and can be used in a limited way. Much like EBTs before them, over the past few years HMRC took a tougher stance and issued warnings and started investigations. I suspect people will start getting in trouble soon or have to treat their third party image rights income under personal income tax.

Use of image rights companies - Taxation

The taxation of image rights has and continues to be a thorny topic for sportspersons and their employers.
www.nortonrosefulbright.com www.nortonrosefulbright.com

HMRC Focusing On Image Rights Tax Avoidance

Tax-News.com delivers news headlines and features on international tax, law, politics, economics and trade.
www.tax-news.com

Edit: sorry, I didn't mean all Image rights schemes were not allowed, but Dybala's certainly is. I see your example was just an issue of his image being used without permission. Obviously image rights schemes are about "image rights" however that is defined by HMRC. It has largely been used to avoid tax as clubs pay a fee to a third party along side a player's wages. This fee is taxed at a much lower rate, allowing players to pay to avoid higher taxes on "image rights" income. I am sure HMRC would have had a few questions for Dybala...
 
Last edited:
Transfer fee around 70m, agent fee around 15m and image rights around 35m, sums up £120m.

Does he really worth the money? He scored only 10 goals in 42 apps (league+CL+cups combined) last season.

Paying £35m just for image rights is utterly stupid, and he even demands around £350,000 per week, that's 150k more wages than Kane (£200,000), definitely screwing up wage structure.

He was going to be Alexis Sanchez of Spurs, it was all written over it, massive flop if we signed him, so glad we didn't bite the bait, Juve was desperate to get rid of him.
 
Last edited:
Of course we haven't lol..did anyone ever believe that we would ?
No way if utd thought it was to costly of a deal that levy ever have done that deal, no way..
He was just playing with us to seem as though he really wanted that deal imo..
 
Gmspurs said:
I think you're misunderstanding....

Every year we get told that we're going to sign a Unicorn towards the end of the transfer window...... Every year fans get their hopes up and get excited at the prospect...... And every year it always falls through


Hence the previous list.
Click to expand...

Ah, maybe so.

So by "we" you meant "we as fans"?

Because "we" as a club - i think we just act opportunistically - we just try to get a deal done with someone who came to the market by some kind of specific circumstances. So those should be viewed as "bonus".

We got Ndombele, Lo Celso and Sessegnon who were the main talk of the summer anyway :)
 
TheSpurEst said:
Ah, maybe so.

So by "we" you meant "we as fans"?

Because "we" as a club - i think we just act opportunistically - we just try to get a deal done with someone who came to the market by some kind of specific circumstances. So those should be viewed as "bonus".

We got Ndombele, Lo Celso and Sessegnon who were the main talk of the summer anyway :)
Click to expand...

"We" as in the fans.

Hopefully the disappointment over Dyabla doesn't overshadow the 2 excellent signings we made yesterday!
 
Raiders said:
Image rights schemes - third party ownership for example - are largely about avoiding tax and can be used in a limited way. Much like EBTs before them, over the past few years HMRC took a tougher stance and issued warnings and started investigations. I suspect people will start getting in trouble soon or have to treat their third party image rights income under personal income tax.

Use of image rights companies - Taxation

The taxation of image rights has and continues to be a thorny topic for sportspersons and their employers.
www.nortonrosefulbright.com www.nortonrosefulbright.com

HMRC Focusing On Image Rights Tax Avoidance

Tax-News.com delivers news headlines and features on international tax, law, politics, economics and trade.
www.tax-news.com

Edit: sorry, I didn't mean all Image rights schemes were not allowed, but Dybala's certainly is. I see your example was just an issue of his image being used without permission. Obviously image rights schemes are about "image rights" however that is defined by HMRC. It has largely been used to avoid tax as clubs pay a fee to a third party along side a player's wages. This fee is taxed at a much lower rate, allowing players to pay to avoid higher taxes on "image rights" income. I am sure HMRC would have had a few questions for Dybala...
Click to expand...
Nice information, the article linked was meant to show image rights are legal under HMRC. I thought the current solution was the club's had to own the image rights when they bought the player, this removes the third party and tax issues but looking at the article Salah is still owned by a third party.
 
r-u-s-x said:
Nice information, the article linked was meant to show image rights are legal under HMRC. I thought the current solution was the club's had to own the image rights when they bought the player, this removes the third party and tax issues but looking at the article Salah is still owned by a third party.
Click to expand...
Yeah, sorry my language was clumsy. I believe HMRC allow 20% of earning to put through image rights third parties. I am not an expert though. I once worked on a EBT case, another more complicated way a lot of people avoided tax. Although in the latter some people paid no income tax for 10 years; I have zero sympathy when HMRC asks for the money at zero interest initially. It looks as if Dybala "image rights" constitute a huge percentage of his wage and there seems to be no effort to distinguish them from his normal wage.
 
Gmspurs said:
Every year we get told that we're going to sign a Unicorn towards the end of the transfer window...... Every year fans get their hopes up and get excited at the prospect...... And every year it always falls through
Click to expand...

We might not have signed a unicorn, but a couple of years ago we got a GOAT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom