Techie exposed giant tax grab, maybe made government change the rules The only certainties in life are death, taxes … and tech causing trouble, a topic that The Register covers each week in this reader-contributed column we call “Who, Me?” that celebrates the moments you made trouble at work and somehow escaped. This week, meet a reader we’ll Regomize as “Dillon,” who told us of a time he worked …
Yeah. In my town the head of council sold himself the football club for buttons to tear down and build an old folks home on.
Then found out there was a covenant on the land to only allow football stadiums.
Then took the council to court to get the covenant removed.
( See: camrose scandal )
Normally the team would then rent the stadium?
The stadium would have many uses, concerts and things, so it would be normal that the team wouldn't be the owner.
If the team thinks their current stadium is too small or decrepit, its normal that they complain and threaten to move - do they have any choice?
But its a risk for the team, the rental costs of the new stadium will presumably be higher...
"Normally the team would then rent the stadium?
The stadium would have many uses, concerts and things, so it would be normal that the team wouldn't be the owner."
Thinks back to Belfast's Odyssey Arena (now called SSE Arena), built as part of the Odyssey development for the Millenium: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey_Place
It is home to the Belfast Giants ice hockey team who play weekly matches there. The Arena was partly public funded so that it could be used for other sporting events (it has an athletics track) but the reality was that due to the time taken to defrost the ice hockey pitch and otherwise prepare the venue before events and to re-freeze it afterwards, and with the weekly Belfast Giants games, it was deemed impractical to be used often for athletics and other events etc.
So the Northern Ireland tax payers/public paid many millions of pounds for an athletics track that has been very rarely used over the past 25 years.
Why on earth would you thaw the ice!
Here is NA we cover the ice and:
Install a basketball court
Law artificial turf and place Indoor (American) Arena Football or indoor soccer
Cover it in dirt for bull riding and even motocross.
I wonder about you guys over there sometime!
"Why on earth would you thaw the ice!"
Maybe I was wrong about that aspect. Anyway the point I was making was that it turned out to be so slow/inconvenient to convert the Arena from Ice Hockey use to athletics (and other uses) and then back to Ice Hockey use in time for games that, as a result, the Arena has barely been used for sporting purposes despite being its construction significantly funded by the NI government for sports purposes.
While there have been loud claims of "no public money" for the new Old Trafford football entertainment complex in Manchester, it does seem to be predicated on significant public investment to enable it. There's been surprisingly little analysis of the economics of commercial sports, but what there is, at least in the UK, seems to suggest that the big-money businesses cause a net economic outflow from their surrounding areas and provide mostly casual, low-quality jobs in the local area.
Also from the Graun: "New stadiums facilitate a transfer of wealth, within geographies and across classes. In many cases they may do more harm than good, saddling local communities with the costs of construction and diverting public funds from education and housing while siphoning off all the stadium’s future wealth for the team itself, which mostly means the team owners: a classic case of privatizing the profits while socializing the risks. Building new stadiums is great business for stadium architects, developers, facilities businesses, and team investors, and a lousy deal for everyone else. The financial flows involved – from the local community into the pockets of team owners – are as predictable as the designs of the stadiums themselves."
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/apr/29/football-soccer-stadiums-everton-nfl
That article is really strange - clearly written by a Liverpool fan trying to come up with mud to sling at Everton.
The reality is that in the UK stadiums are almost always privately funded, usually with councils charging large 'developer levies' for planning consent. The exceptions are either government-funded international sporting boondoggles like the Olympics, and cases of outright corruption like, say, Spurs paying off various Haringey councillors to get permission to do enough unconnected property development to be able to afford their new stadium.
There is no comparison!
Offering a tax incentive for a company to set up operations within a city, with obligations to hire a set # of employees for a set # of years is a damn good investment for local communities!
Those jobs, at a certain average wage brings in a significant tax revenue. Even in areas without income taxes the economic activity of these people brings in much needed tax revenue. In most instances over time this revenue is well up and above any incentive granted the employer!
The evidence is clear here in the US. We've seen the growth of business and industry in the South where government are more accommodating to these arrangements and the decline in the Nort where they are not. We've seen the Asian and European auto manufacturers build plants throughout the south creating millions of jobs. One case in point, BMW wanted to build a plant in Western NY because of access to available Hydroelectricity and the Great Lakes shipping but the state and local governments would not make a deal because of Democrat politicians' opposition. North Carolina offered them a deal, and they move the project there!
Oh, it's been weird for a very long time, let me tell you.
Yes, we, the plebs, pay for the stadium, then pay astronomically high ticket prices to see what's in the stadium, not to mention eye watering1 prices for a beer (yellow fizzy, of course) and a hot dog.
Down here in San Diego we finally ran the Chargers2 out of town and foisted them on Los Angeles. The Chargers had a perfectly servicable stadium but not up to National Football League "Superbowl" standards of opulence in "sky boxes" and hot and cold running corruption.3
After many attempts to manipulate the city council into coughing up a billion or two for a new stadium, it was put to a county wide vote and it lost, so the Chargers skedaddled up to LA.
It was one of the few times where the 2/3 majority required by California's Proposition 134 actually proved useful.
At one point, Los Angeles had three NFL teams at the same time -- the Rams, the Chargers, and the Raiders5 (which are a story of duplicity and rent seeking in and of themselves).
This concentration of fubball teams led me to the conclusion that all sportsball teams should play in Los Angeles and leave the rest of us alone, but I realize that's something of a minority view.
Now, about the Olympics. . .
________________
1 Where did that expression originate, anyhow? I assume it's from the Brits.
2 American "football" team.
3 The tales of magnate "Papa" Doug Manchester, in collaboration with the owners of the Chargers, the Spanos family, in trying to get the taxpayers to build a new stadium would fill several volumes but would probably get me sued into oblivion if I related them here.
4 Ask your grandparents.
5 Since moved to Las Vegas.
The team owner says the town should built him a new stadium, or at least contribute hundreds of millions toward the new stadium, or he'll take his ball (along with his team) to a different city where they WILL build him a new stadium. Because it is basically understood these days to win a major professional sports team to a city that lacks it that building them a stadium is required and often not the end of the largess.
The economic impact can be considerable when measured over the lifetime of the stadium, especially since that stadium will end up being used for other events like concerts that also have economic impact. There will be a construction boom around the stadium for building of hotels and restaurants/bars and there will often be a conference center or similar associated with it so those hotels stay full when games/concerts aren't happening if it is too far away to get people to otherwise stay in those hotels when visiting that city.
But it is all down to the fact that city A is blackmailed by the owner to gift him a stadium because there will always be cities X, Y and Z who don't have a team and are willing to give him a stadium to get one.
The problem as always is that while it makes sense as far as overall economic impact, the average person is paying the cost one way or another while the team owner and the owners of the hotels, restaurants, and construction firms that built it along with the events firm(s) that handles the conference center and books the concerts derive most of the benefit. But where things like this are put to a public vote that vote often succeeds because enough of them are fans of the team or they get fooled into believing some of that money will somehow trickle down to them.
Yes, it is. We are always sold the "snake oil" that the "taxpayer" investing in this new facility for "high profiting" sports team will result in much needed economic activity that will pay for itself.
Whether or not it happens is never really seen by the taxpayer and any new taxes designated to pay for this never seem to go away.
These kinds of things seem to occur in places where the political con men hold power. You know the ones, who claim to care about the poor and working man while giving them the hard one where it hurts!
But if someone proposes a tax incentive to bring a manufacturer into the area that will hire 1000's of people at good wages who will all contribute to the tax base, well NO, we cannot do that. It just wouldn't be a good thing for the plebes to make a good living because if they did, they would no longer have any use for the corrupt politicians!
Wait a minute - the tax payer is responsible for building a stadium for the local sporting team, who are themselves a profit making enterprise?
Yes, sports teams threaten to move to a larger market if their smaller market doesn't cover the cost of building a newer stadium.
The reason they want a newer stadium isn't that the old one is about to be condemned or anything, just that league rules limit prices on normal tickets, but give free reign to charge crazy prices on private "skyboxes". So they demand a new stadium with a lot more and fancier skyboxes to ensure plenty of profit.
In the past, there were plenty of cities who bought the sales pitch and would go along with it, but in the past 1-2 decades many have become wise that the projected benefits for the city never pans out and have had few takers (like happened with the Olympics).
That's how you end up with three different NFL teams planning to move to Los Angeles in the same year... A market which for decades prior had zero.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160105202607/https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25438233/chargers-raiders-and-rams-file-for-relocation-to-los-angeles
False.
(Almost) No-one resents paying VAT, because by law it is included in the shelf-edge price, so they never usually have to think about it. And when someone inevitably gets shown a price excluding VAT, what they actually object to isn't so much the fact that they have to pay a tax, as the thought that the price was deliberately misrepresented to them -- "The website said £100, but they charged me £120!"
If the law required everyone's wages to be advertised net of all deductions, almost no-one would resent paying income tax, either.
> If the law required everyone's wages to be advertised net of all deductions, almost no-one would resent paying income tax, either.
The US IRS has developed a scheme of giving "refunds" at tax time. You pay income taxes out of your paycheck all year, but you usually end up paying more than you actually owe. This means you get a check for the overage from the IRS
Thus the idiots crow about the $1K-$2K "refund" they got, instead of bitching about the $10K-$15K taxes they actually paid.
And yes, this works on people here.
@JulieM
"(Almost) No-one resents paying VAT, because by law it is included in the shelf-edge price, so they never usually have to think about it"..."If the law required everyone's wages to be advertised net of all deductions, almost no-one would resent paying income tax, either."
That is pretty much my point. If people knew how much was being stolen from them they would revolt. People accept paying when they dont know what they are paying.
@short a sandwich
"But avoidance currently isn't which is also dodging of taxes but legally mandated (for the time being)."
That would be the very wrong end of the stick. The gov makes the rules of how much they can legally lay claim to. Tax avoidance is obeying the laws. Remove that option and you have either lawlessness or the laws meaning anything the government wants, which is about the same.
Sounds like someone enjoys the idea of not paying their taxes, but doesn't understand the loopholes and carve-outs that are put in place are not for the hardworking wage or salary slaves. But only for the rich elites. So they end up arguing for the loopholes in the forlorn hope they too will benefit. It's incredibly sad to observe this kind of thinking by otherwise educated and intelligent folk.
@AC
"Sounds like someone enjoys the idea of not paying their taxes"
Yes. Who actually likes paying tax? If you look at how many people voluntarily contribute to the tax take you can see the answer is few to none.
"but doesn't understand the loopholes and carve-outs that are put in place are not for the hardworking wage or salary slaves"
What has that to do with the price of fish? Reread the comment, if the rules are made up on the spot then we all suffer. Have an ISA? You are tax avoiding. Single occupancy council tax discount? Tax avoidance. Pension? Tax avoidance. All of it becomes exposed if the government doesnt have to live by its own rules.
"But only for the rich elites. So they end up arguing for the loopholes in the forlorn hope they too will benefit. It's incredibly sad to observe this kind of thinking by otherwise educated and intelligent folk."
And yet you argue that you are not allowed to own anything. That the gov should just steal from you whatever they like and you call that educated and intelligent thinking.
Take your tired old Marxist talking points and go away!
Most very rich people don't pay income taxes because they don't have a lot of "income". They are already rich and what income they have comes from investments. A lot of times that income is just re-invested.
This who are receiving salaries ARE paying taxes, many times MILLIONS in taxes.
Corporations pay taxes on PROFITS, if a company isn't profitable, then they don't pay taxes. (Corporation actually don't pay the tax, their customers do)
Abiding by the tax laws is not dodging taxes! Would you pay more tax than you are legally obligated to do? No you would not!
"If the law required everyone's wages to be advertised net of all deductions, almost no-one would resent paying income tax, either."
That would be an interesting experiment in psychology or behavioral economics, but I do foresee one small problem. Any change to the tax rates would be immediately noticeable and fiercely popular or unpopular. You have the reverse of the effect you get when the rates are stable. Instead of seeing a change to a percentage in a table of lots of percentages which gets conveniently divided, people would have their annual difference calculated for them and presented to them as a wage cut. In both cases, the amount they're paying more this year is the same, but if you're using the choice of numbers to show them to hide one of them, it brings another one into clearer view by definition.
There would also be an interesting ethical discussion to be had about this, but since any choice you make will involve making some numbers prominent and others slightly hidden (easily calculable but you have to bother to do it), I'm not sure if there is a right answer. I suppose you could make a case that the most ethical thing to do is to always show all numbers, so people see pre-tax and post-tax numbers in all circumstances, but that could be confusing to some.
This post has been deleted by its author
They would. But the sales tax is obvious, it is there if you are smart enough to read it. Last time my county wanted to add another .5% on our sales tax for a reason I don't remember, it was defeated!
Now income taxes are a whole 'nother thing! People DO NOT even look at their tax withholding. If they were required to make a monthly payment for their income taxes like they do for housing and utilities, there would be a whole scale revolt!
The problem is, at least here in these United States, if you ask any random person what they paid in income taxes last year you will get this answer, "I didn't pay anything, I got a refund!"
It's the biggest scam pulled on the people! (The second is Social Security)
"...my home city's most prominent retailer" combined with dissatisfied local sports team owners and multiple sales taxes: The city is Minneapolis, Minnesota, the retailer was Dayton's [2], and the teams were the Twins (baseball) and/or the Vikings (American gridiron football [3]).
1. This is mostly guessing with some personal history of living nearby. I could be totally wrong, of course, so no bets.
2. AKA Dayton-Hudson most of my life. The stores got merged with Marshall Fields, sold off, sold again, rebranded as Macy's, and many of them since closed (especially post-pandemic). The company embraced their second-tier brand Target and lives on quite happily with the new name and from a new HQ (same city). Go see Wikipedia if you want more.
3. Because I appreciate El Reg's cultural roots (along with many of its readers) and shall not sully the worldwide love of association football by using the same term without qualifiers. In return, please don't be upset if we call footy "soccer" for convenience.
Eeeh when aaarr wurr a lad back in't 60s und 70s our regional Sunday lunchtime football highlights programme was called Star Soccer, and although it was supposed to cover the cream of Midlands football it invariably came from either Molyneux or The Baseball Ground and only once every third blue moon did it deign to visit dear old Filbert Street.
ATV, when ITV comprised separate companies covering the different regions and long before Central TV took it over. Wolves being on every chuffing week was obviously completely unconnected with ATV's Head Of Sport Billy Wright having been Wolves' captain 15 years earlier, as well as being married to The Beverly Sisters.
Taxes obfuscation is hardly a novelty.
We, the french, even built a whole civil service that does just that: collecting half of the salary of every single working people, with shit loads of lines and percentage.
Then, they re-distribute all this insane money with ... unknown ratios that even the cours des comptes (the controlling arm of the french state) can't see through !
The biggest money laundering machine of all time: URSAAF :)
Our American Football stadium adventure:
Starring a recently-deceased drug-addled owner who's daddy snuck away in the dead of night to bring the team to a new city, got the city to foot the bill for the new stadium by implementing new higher sales taxes on food/beverage/housing in the city AND surrounding counties, then demanded a brand-new stadium with more city money, more city and surrounding county tax increases.
We're still paying for the FIRST stadium mind you. As part of the deal, the team got to sell off the naming rights for $200 million USD, and HALF of the proceeds of anything sold in the building goes directly to the owner's pocket. Everyone got their beak wet and the taxpayers are left holding the bag. Merits of attracting additional spending in the city aside, this was not a good deal for Joe and Jane Average.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
