buctootim

Yes but ExSaints and Ex-saints produces no results. You may know the organisation is actually legally called the The Southampton FC Old Boys Assocation (ex Saints) Ltd and is a registered charity, but no-one reading the website would know their name or their status. Indeed the contact address for the ex Saints website is different to the company. Charity law exists exactly to stop the public being mislead by sound alike and lookalike concerns. Reputable charities should be shouting their status, as they are legally required to do. It gives the public confidence.

A search on the charity commission website produces no results under 'ex Saints'. Dress it up all you want, they failed to inform the public of their proper name and their status. If they had no doubt they would have raised more than £4,000 last year.

Charities have a legal obligation to publish their registration number on all communications - letter headings, emails and website. Given that legal obligation to disclose the fact that the organisation is a charity, if they fail to do so it is reasonable to conclude it is not.

I said what I did on the basis of the information on their website. The fact that their website doesnt list their charitable status, their trustees or objectives is a problem for them.

IF somebody on £500,000 paid full tax on their earnings and made 25% contributions to a private pension they would pay income tax of £165,000 and NI of £8759, total c£173,300. 17 people on earnings of £30,000pa would pay tax and NI totalling £125,375. However high earners typically have access to 'tax efficiency' methods including blind trusts, tax relief for various essential expenditures and other offsets. By the time you have added in 17 people paying 17 lots of council tax (c£1,400pa x 17 = £23,800) compared with say 1 x £3,000 then the difference is quite small, if indeed it exists at all.

Simply that people on 'normal' incomes typically pay relatively little into pension schemes and the money they do contribute gets tax relief at only 23%. High earners typically pay a lot more into pensions and those contributions attract 40% tax relief. Also 'normal' earners pay NI on nearly all their income, but the upper threshold is c£44,000pa - ie earnings above this are NI exempt. Add in high earners tax breaks ('essential' business clothes, home office, off shored earnings etc) and the difference in tax take isnt very great.

Weird. I could have sworn you said they weren't bailed out.

Why would they be near?

VAT, NI contributions, 40% tax relief on pension contributions. Or don't you get that?

JP Morgan recieved $25 billion in TARP bailouts.

Nice looking building which will be great for attracting players, especially to the academy. May age poorly though. In a few years the wood cladding will be grey with lots of grey polished concrete surfaces inside and in the winter the windows will reflect the sky and look, um grey.

We're going to have to get promotion now. That would look just plain silly in league 1.

But its been clear for years he wasnt going to get a game either under his dad or at Saints. If he had dropped down the leagues to find his level and be able to play regularly he would have my full respect. Drawing a wage for not playing, and knowing you wouldn't play makes him the inevitable butt of jokes imo.

Torquay

Hypo and Dune are on it.

Lolz you really are big time Hypo! You have spoken to the son of a manager from 30 years ago, the Bournemouth physio and two ex players who have been retired 12 years or so. I am so sorry to have ever doubted your insight!

Hypochondriac in missing the point shocker......

How so? Please do enlighten us with your knowledge of charity law.

You havent factored in that Stockport are 24th after Pulis played for them but Barnet are currently enjoying 22nd before Pulis plays.

Good, Im pleased to hear it. However in that case they are in breach of their Charity Commission registration by not listing on their website their charity registration number, who their trustees are and what their aims are. They need to make that clear, not just because its a statutory duty, but also because without it it frankly makes the organisation look dodgy.

...

Most of those ****e Mail articles from the past few months have been written by Sami Mokel, who used to be at the Daily Star. Just spent a 3 or 4 minutes looking at previous articles of his. Many, perhaps most of his articles appear to be simply made up.

In an ideal world kids should be adopted by two healthy, happily married parents in their late 20s / early 30s who have other children, good family and friends networks, are comfortably off, same race as the child, live in a great house near a good school, have got lots of interesting hobbies, are politically middle of the road. In reality that isnt an option for most children up for adoption - so there is going to be some are of compromise. My kids dont have several of the 'ideal' indicators above. IMO finding suitable adoptive parents should take into account all factors, pluses and minuses, and find the best parents for that child. Being old, single, alternative lifestyle, different race etc shouldnt be automatic disqualifiers, but they should be balanced by strong pluses. Personally I find it hard to see how being adopted by two older, very famous men is the best option for the child given that disability free babies are in high demand - but then I dont know the full story.

Pol Pot bought me a beer once.

Yes. He was keen that Germans should be able to drive across Europe as quickly as possible.