|
General Transfer Discussion (2019)
|
| Heine |
Posted on 23-09-2019 20:10
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4116
Joined: 08-04-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Vantomme ofc : D
|
| |
|
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 23-09-2019 20:11
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3634
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
Am I the only one who thinks it depends how high the Maksimov Battle ends up going?
|
| |
|
|
| Mresuperstar |
Posted on 23-09-2019 20:14
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8058
Joined: 22-06-2009
PCM$: 650.00
|
sammyt93 wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks it depends how high the Maksimov Battle ends up going?
Everyone is welcomed to make it go higher, for meme sakes. 
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 23-09-2019 20:16
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Not knowing PCM 18 combined with me fucking over the CT sprinters with Ismael Kip last season either signing could turen out pretty decent I would say.
|
| |
|
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 23-09-2019 20:18
|
World Champion
Posts: 10845
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
SotD wrote:
Not knowing PCM 18 combined with me fucking over the CT sprinters with Ismael Kip last season either signing could turen out pretty decent I would say.
Knowing PCM 18, I still don't understand PCM 18. 
|
| |
|
|
| knockout |
Posted on 23-09-2019 20:18
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7735
Joined: 21-12-2010
PCM$: 400.00
|
Vantomme was definitely funnier
A Big Thank You To All MG Reporters! |
| |
|
|
| Yellow Jersey |
Posted on 23-09-2019 21:08
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2809
Joined: 16-04-2013
PCM$: 900.00
|
Now that they've been confirmed congratz to the managers who got Bernal, Pogacar and Hirschi the biggest talents of the season 
|
| |
|
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 23-09-2019 21:13
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3634
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
Landing Hirschi was my #1 priority going into the transfer season, I was prepared to go a lot higher than I had to for him.
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 23-09-2019 21:18
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
sammyt93 wrote:
Landing Hirschi was my #1 priority going into the transfer season, I was prepared to go a lot higher than I had to for him.
It was also my top priority, but not to the same Wirtgen levels as last year.
Goos will remain solo in my talented Marcs club, it seems.
|
| |
|
|
| OlegTinkov |
Posted on 24-09-2019 00:34
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2666
Joined: 31-12-2007
PCM$: 450.00
|
OlegTinkov wrote:
Question I see a lot of deals that are to my knowledge not by the rules, for example the Paillot, Daniel Vesely and Ben Swift deal; according to rule nr.13.
13. No rider can be traded for 0€. For riders of 100.000€ wage or less, minimum rider transfer fee is their wage!
For riders with more than 100.000€ wage, minimum transfer fee is 100.000€.
Ben Swift is sold to Aker; Swift (wage 660.000) the minimum transfer fee is 100.000 but Aker is paying more which is fine (because they agreed that Swift is better in their opinion than Paillot+Vesely).
Vesely (wage 210.000) the minimum transfer fee is 100.000 and Paillot (wage 170.000) the minimum transfer fee is 100.000 so together Aegon at least have to pay 200.000 transfer fee, but Aegon is paying 0 to Aker Mot which is not according to the rules right?
If they calculated the deal was worth 226.000 is favor of Aegon; Aegon should pay 200.000 and Aker 426.000, so that everything is calculated correct and with Transfer Tax at the end.
Why not? I don't see a rule that says if you swap a rider, rule 13 does not apply.(and which could mean in the end you are dodging the transfer tax)
Also if the deal would be done separately for example Aegon buys Yoann Paillot and Daniel Vesely and later in the transfer season Aker buys Ben Swift rule 13 would apply, but if you combine them not? That make no sense.
So nobody cares about these invalid deals? We are just going to ignore them/not seal them and move on?
Edited by OlegTinkov on 24-09-2019 03:35
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 13:05
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| valverde321 |
Posted on 24-09-2019 00:57
|
World Champion
Posts: 12986
Joined: 20-05-2009
PCM$: 530.00
|
Hayakawa wanted 120,000 in renewals, and rejected 90,000 I think. Just got him for 60,000 as a FA 
|
| |
|
|
| Luis Leon Sanchez |
Posted on 24-09-2019 01:35
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5533
Joined: 12-06-2013
PCM$: 500.00
|
Oleg,
In the example you’ve given why would Team A pay 336,000 and Team B pay 100,000 when Team A could just pay the difference of 226,000? It wouldn’t make any sense and by your logic, wouldn’t a large number of rider swaps be deemed invalid.
One of the reasons teams enter into Rider Swap deals is to avoid the use of their cash and it would defeat the purpose of the tax system if people were losing money for no reason by having to include it in a swap deal which doesn’t need it.
|
| |
|
|
| OlegTinkov |
Posted on 24-09-2019 01:53
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2666
Joined: 31-12-2007
PCM$: 450.00
|
Luis Leon Sanchez wrote:
Oleg,
In the example you’ve given why would Team A pay 336,000 and Team B pay 100,000 when Team A could just pay the difference of 226,000? It wouldn’t make any sense and by your logic, wouldn’t a large number of rider swaps be deemed invalid.
One of the reasons teams enter into Rider Swap deals is to avoid the use of their cash and it would defeat the purpose of the tax system if people were losing money for no reason by having to include it in a swap deal which doesn’t need it.
That's my whole point if you just pay the difference (in this example of 226,000) you are first of all making a deal that isn't according to the rules (the rule is pretty clear No rider can be traded for 0€.) but you could also be dodging the transfer tax by the end of the transfer season this way.
|
| |
|
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 24-09-2019 01:57
|
World Champion
Posts: 10845
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
I feel like we had this entire discussion at least once before. I don't remember how that ended though.
|
| |
|
|
| Luis Leon Sanchez |
Posted on 24-09-2019 02:30
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5533
Joined: 12-06-2013
PCM$: 500.00
|
OlegTinkov wrote:
Luis Leon Sanchez wrote:
Oleg,
In the example you’ve given why would Team A pay 336,000 and Team B pay 100,000 when Team A could just pay the difference of 226,000? It wouldn’t make any sense and by your logic, wouldn’t a large number of rider swaps be deemed invalid.
One of the reasons teams enter into Rider Swap deals is to avoid the use of their cash and it would defeat the purpose of the tax system if people were losing money for no reason by having to include it in a swap deal which doesn’t need it.
That's my whole point if you just pay the difference (in this example of 226,000) you are first of all making a deal that isn't according to the rules (the rule is pretty clear No rider can be traded for 0€.) but you could also be dodging the transfer tax by the end of the transfer season this way.
Personally, I feel that this would be a transaction tax rather than an income tax. Which, if we want to make a thing, is something to look at in the future. But the point of the tax is that it takes money out of the game, especially from those who end up with a lot of it that would otherwise go to training.
If you were to implement a "transaction tax" in which every rider swapped requires payment, then you would punish all teams as CT and PCT teams end up paying the fee in rider swaps so why punish them with an unnecessary tax?
|
| |
|
|
| OlegTinkov |
Posted on 24-09-2019 02:36
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2666
Joined: 31-12-2007
PCM$: 450.00
|
Luis Leon Sanchez wrote:
OlegTinkov wrote:
Luis Leon Sanchez wrote:
Oleg,
In the example you’ve given why would Team A pay 336,000 and Team B pay 100,000 when Team A could just pay the difference of 226,000? It wouldn’t make any sense and by your logic, wouldn’t a large number of rider swaps be deemed invalid.
One of the reasons teams enter into Rider Swap deals is to avoid the use of their cash and it would defeat the purpose of the tax system if people were losing money for no reason by having to include it in a swap deal which doesn’t need it.
That's my whole point if you just pay the difference (in this example of 226,000) you are first of all making a deal that isn't according to the rules (the rule is pretty clear No rider can be traded for 0€.) but you could also be dodging the transfer tax by the end of the transfer season this way.
Personally, I feel that this would be a transaction tax rather than an income tax. Which, if we want to make a thing, is something to look at in the future. But the point of the tax is that it takes money out of the game, especially from those who end up with a lot of it that would otherwise go to training.
If you were to implement a "transaction tax" in which every rider swapped requires payment, then you would punish all teams as CT and PCT teams end up paying the fee in rider swaps so why punish them with an unnecessary tax?
I think you totally have it upside down; the tax is for money gained so the tax applies for (mainly PT) teams who sell/gain more than 500.000
Also I'm not trying to implement anything, the rule ("Trades between teams" nr.13)is already in place.
Edited by OlegTinkov on 24-09-2019 02:41
|
| |
|
|
| Luis Leon Sanchez |
Posted on 24-09-2019 02:44
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5533
Joined: 12-06-2013
PCM$: 500.00
|
OlegTinkov wrote:
I think you totally have it upside down the tax is for money gained so the tax applies for (mainly PT) team who sell/gain more than 500.000
The point I'm trying to make is that all teams involved in that deal would increase their taxable income which doesn't make any sense when the team paying for Swift in that example would be considered the "spending team". Why should they get 100,000 in taxable income when they're the ones buying the rider? Only Swift's team should be receiving any taxable income in that deal.
|
| |
|
|
| sammyt93 |
Posted on 24-09-2019 02:53
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3634
Joined: 03-07-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
Rule 2 does make a distinction between a rider swap deal and a rider sale deal though,
2. If this is a rider swap deal involving riders from both teams then either team can open the thread. For a rider sale deal, only the person who currently owns the rider may open the thread.
Seeing as both of these rules haven't changed since last year and rider swap deals didn't have to include fees going both ways for transfer tax last year either I think the consistency being shown in the implementation is a sign that the wording of rule 13 isn't quite in line with the intention behind it.
|
| |
|
|
| OlegTinkov |
Posted on 24-09-2019 03:22
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2666
Joined: 31-12-2007
PCM$: 450.00
|
Luis Leon Sanchez wrote:
OlegTinkov wrote:
I think you totally have it upside down the tax is for money gained so the tax applies for (mainly PT) team who sell/gain more than 500.000
The point I'm trying to make is that all teams involved in that deal would increase their taxable income which doesn't make any sense when the team paying for Swift in that example would be considered the "spending team". Why should they get 100,000 in taxable income when they're the ones buying the rider? Only Swift's team should be receiving any taxable income in that deal.
Fact is they are not ONLY buying 1 rider, they are also selling 2 riders so they also should have (taxable) income.
Because if Aker sold those 2 riders to another team they would have had (taxable) income. And there shouldn't be a different in rules or taxes depending on what team you are selling too, right?
sammyt93 wrote:
Rule 2 does make a distinction between a rider swap deal and a rider sale deal though,
2. If this is a rider swap deal involving riders from both teams then either team can open the thread. For a rider sale deal, only the person who currently owns the rider may open the thread.
Seeing as both of these rules haven't changed since last year and rider swap deals didn't have to include fees going both ways for transfer tax last year either I think the consistency being shown in the implementation is a sign that the wording of rule 13 isn't quite in line with the intention behind it.
rule 2 saying that both teams can make the thread is quite logical right and doesn't say anything because it doesn't matter who opens it obviously.
The fact that people apparently didn't understand the rules in the past doesn't mean much to me either.
But if I'm the only one who feels that way it's fine. It just feels very strange to me that stand-alone deals (1 rider) have to follow the "No rider can be traded for 0€" and combined deals not. Also like I said this way it matter to who you are selling to and suddenly the rules don't apply which is wrong imo.
|
| |
|
|
| Ulrich Ulriksen |
Posted on 24-09-2019 04:27
|
Directeur Sportif
Posts: 3262
Joined: 02-11-2010
PCM$: 300.00
|
@oleg - I see your concern about inconsistent treatment of transactions. I think the problem with your argument is that you are assuming the value of the riders on the free side is the minimum transfer fee.
But what if a team traded the best rider in the game for the second best rider in the game plus 100,000. Your logic would say the amount to be taxed should be 200,000 and 100,000. But in reality it should be something like 3,000,000 and 2,900,000 so to apply your rule you would either:
1. Need a rule that said the value shall be set at minimum in absence of a value. A rule that would pretty unfair because a trade between 2 CT teams for neo-pro would create as much tax as a trade between two PT teams for GT winners.
2. Have somebody have the job of setting the value of riders in a trade. Not a job anyone wants.
If the goal is to stop a team accumulating huge amounts for training then trades don't really create this issue. Although if that is the goal it seems like the tax should be on net income (in - out), not total in. Otherwise, as you note, doing two cash transactions with two different teams creates much more tax than doing one rider swap transaction with the same team although the outcome is identical.
So I agree with your issue but not with your solution. But the right solution depends on the goal of the tax, which I don't have the knowledge to comment on. |
| |
|
