Outstanding but nothing to be alarmed about, says Tarry: bit.ly/x8pYIo Is this a routine bill or exposure to image rights etc? Barker still pushing the '8,000 attendance to break-even' line, which Tarry rubbished, rather being '8,000 to spend max salary cap'.

Outstanding but nothing to be alarmed about, says Tarry: bit.ly/x8pYIo Is this a routine bill or exposure to image rights etc? Barker still pushing the '8,000 attendance to break-even' line, which Tarry rubbished, rather being '8,000 to spend max salary cap'.

...

Surely if we are paying our tax monthyl like tary says....then there isnt a problem? As this must have been agreed with the Inland revenue. Maybe the whole image rights thing left us with an extra bill which we are paying off monthly too......I suspect its a bit of a non story from the MEN.......sports club paying tax monthly and still have some to pay.....hm,...who doesnt?!

Shock horror anther story in the MEN putting Salford down, if it is not the BBC and few Salford staff (i wonder if when it was in Manchester did the BEEB employ anybody from Salford then?) it is something else, there are all sorts of reasons we owe tax even if we are paying monthly, I pay PAYE but i am paying back an under payment because a previous employer worked out my tax wrong.



anyway it is a lot less than Rangers at £75m

Bigpev your assumption couls be right.However if the sum owed is for PAYE then by now the club would have agreed a time to pay option as the Revenue are quite strict on paying this tax, usually charging a penalty for late payment, administered once the P35 is submitted before May 19th.

If this was Corporation tax owed then I wouldn't worry since that would signify the club had made profit of around £250000.00 following the submission of their last accounts.

This would then only leave VAT as a third mainstream tax and again they are quite strict in it's collection, however if it is due to a late filing of the Vat 100 then if this is the first offence HMRC would allow them this error without any penalties, again though they would need to negotiate a time to pay option.



As for all you fans slating the MEN, I didn't see any of you moaning last week when they ran a story about Salford on ever edition, often regurgitating the same stuff, your only problem is Neil Barker is the chief regurgitator.!!

I'd be more worried by the quote from your chief exec "It means you have to dance around and find a way to raise money from somewhere and keep battling on to keep things ticking over."

Quote Chico="Chico"Outstanding but nothing to be alarmed about, says Tarry: bit.ly/x8pYIo Is this a routine bill or exposure to image rights etc? Barker still pushing the '8,000 attendance to break-even' line, which Tarry rubbished, rather being '8,000 to spend max salary cap'.'" It was Tarry who was actually quoted.

Quote Chico="Chico"Outstanding but nothing to be alarmed about, says Tarry: bit.ly/x8pYIo Is this a routine bill or exposure to image rights etc? Barker still pushing the '8,000 attendance to break-even' line, which Tarry rubbished, rather being '8,000 to spend max salary cap'.'" It was Tarry who was actually quoted.

As saying we need 8k to break even? Where?

In the Football near swinton precinct

My apologies to Mr Tarry....



"we need 8,000 fans to break even,"said Steve Simms......as quoted in Salford Online sport.

And in League Express the other week DT was quoted as saying 8k average will allow us to spend the full cap.



There is a BIG difference between the two and the club should not have two senior officials telling different stories to the press.

Has it not occured to anybody that Salford along with probably all the other clubs had budgeted to recieve in cash around 50 - 100 grand in SL sponsorship?



Instead you've got your name on a lorry





Just a thought

Surely It is not in Simms remit, to discuss the running of the club,only Mr Tarry.