• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Which Tyler said:
In terms of Mea Culpa.s it's very much of the "**** you, I did nothing wrong, it's all a leftie witch-hunt" variety.

I particularly like this bit "I called for the inquiry and undertook to resign, if it made any finding of bullying whatsoever. I believe it is important to keep my word." So important is it to "keep my word" that it required 24 hours, a shed-load of external pressure; and almost certainly a direct ultimatum from the PM.
Click to expand...
I think it's a fair enough statement tbh. He's clearly unhappy and he's got the right to put across his point.

He said he'd go and he has. We haven't seen the report and we don't know what conversations have happened behind closed doors - we can speculate but we don't know. Downing St apparently insisting that Raab went of his own volition.

Leaving this case aside, this is a difficult area. Some cases are obvious, but others are much more difficult - one person's robust conversation is another person's bullying.
 
Old Hooker said:
I think it's a fair enough statement tbh. He's clearly unhappy and he's got the right to put across his point.

He said he'd go and he has. We haven't seen the report and we don't know what conversations have happened behind closed doors - we can speculate but we don't know. Downing St apparently insisting that Raab went of his own volition.

Leaving this case aside, this is a difficult area. Some cases are obvious, but others are much more difficult - one person's robust conversation is another person's bullying.
Click to expand...
The cases that have been made public certainly didn't seem like bullying, but they may well have been the ones that were dismissed.

Until (if) the report becomes public, I guess we just have to take it at face value
 
Gotta love the timing from a damage limitation perspective. Sunak gets the report the day after PMQs and Raab is gone just before the weekend.
 
Last edited:
McTallshort said:
It absolutely isn't. They are also being sued by another litigation firm for over 2 billion, their own shareholders are suing them and a producer of Tucker Carlson is also suing.
Click to expand...
Fox will just write it off from their taxes though and will then have insurance cover the remainder. Unless the other lawsuits hit them hard, it will not be anywhere near as damaging as it first appears.
 
Ragey Erasmus said:
Fox will just write it off from their taxes though and will then have insurance cover the remainder. Unless the other lawsuits hit them hard, it will not be anywhere near as damaging as it first appears.
Click to expand...
It's pretty ridiculous that they can write it off as a tax expense. If the US use the same principle as UK of "wholly and exclusively" for their trade it'll confirms part of their day to day business is to tell outright lies.

Having said that apparently US federal/state rate being 21% they'd only knock off that percentage of the damages off their tax bill.

And no doubt increase their future insurance premiums though.
 
McTallshort said:
It absolutely isn't. They are also being sued by another litigation firm for over 2 billion, their own shareholders are suing them and a producer of Tucker Carlson is also suing.
Click to expand...
Somehow I think old Rupert wil come through this absolutely fine. He's got a few quid, he's not going bankrupt anytime soon. We'll see.
 
Bada-Bing! said:
It's pretty ridiculous that they can write it off as a tax expense. If the US use the same principle as UK of "wholly and exclusively" for their trade it'll confirms part of their day to day business is to tell outright lies.

Having said that apparently US federal/state rate being 21% they'd only knock off that percentage of the damages off their tax bill.

And no doubt increase their future insurance premiums though.
Click to expand...
Writing stuff off on tax is misleading. I am self-employed and if I need tools, accommodation, insurance etc I can put these down as expenses on my self assessment but I still have to actually have the money and the income to buy them in the first place.

Fox still have to pay salaries, standing costs, running cost, all the other costs associated with running a large media outlet. They cannot do this if they don't have the actual money to pay for it. I believe Fox's income is 1.5 billion which is it's gross income, I have no idea of its operating profit but let's say for argument it's 20% of that's 300 million. This law suit has wiped out all that profit plus another 400 million. Fox are going to need to find that 400 million from somewhere or they cannot make their operating costs. They could borrow this but given all the other law suits they are facing who is going to lend them it? You also have increased insurance premiums, loss of advertising revenue and the head man Murdoch moving away from it.

There is only so much you can write off on tax before the business becomes insolvent
 
McTallshort said:
Writing stuff off on tax is misleading. I am self-employed and if I need tools, accommodation, insurance etc I can put these down as expenses on my self assessment but I still have to actually have the money and the income to buy them in the first place.

Fox still have to pay salaries, standing costs, running cost, all the other costs associated with running a large media outlet. They cannot do this if they don't have the actual money to pay for it. I believe Fox's income is 1.5 billion which is it's gross income, I have no idea of its operating profit but let's say for argument it's 20% of that's 30 million. This law suit has wiped out all that profit plus another 40 million. Fox are going to need to find that 40 million from somewhere or they cannot make their operating costs. They could borrow this but given all the other law suits they are facing who is going to lend them it? You also have increased insurance premiums, loss of advertising revenue and the head man Murdoch moving away from it.

There is only so much you can write off on tax before the business becomes insolvent
Click to expand...
20% of 1.5 billion is 300 million, not 30 million. Maybe you needed an extra 2 years of maths? :p
 
McTallshort said:
Writing stuff off on tax is misleading. I am self-employed and if I need tools, accommodation, insurance etc I can put these down as expenses on my self assessment but I still have to actually have the money and the income to buy them in the first place.

Fox still have to pay salaries, standing costs, running cost, all the other costs associated with running a large media outlet. They cannot do this if they don't have the actual money to pay for it. I believe Fox's income is 1.5 billion which is it's gross income, I have no idea of its operating profit but let's say for argument it's 20% of that's 300 million. This law suit has wiped out all that profit plus another 400 million. Fox are going to need to find that 400 million from somewhere or they cannot make their operating costs. They could borrow this but given all the other law suits they are facing who is going to lend them it? You also have increased insurance premiums, loss of advertising revenue and the head man Murdoch moving away from it.

There is only so much you can write off on tax before the business becomes insolvent
Click to expand...
Yes, of course, but the cost of the tax bill is still an additional cost to any business.

Just Fox has much broader shoulders take such a hit. Hence why I said they'd only save around 21% off their tax bill. And Other parts of Murdoch's empire could well lend to cover any costs from this litigation.

And It's not like you as self employed as you have unlimited liability if sued. Fox is a corporation and so also has limited liability. Mr Murdoch is not going to pay those damages out of his own pocket.
 
www.dailymail.co.uk

Wallabies forced to wear white jersey in 'woke' World Rugby move

The Wallabies will have to wear a white jersey in their last pool game against Portugal at the Rugby World Cup as part of a policy to accommodate fans with colour-blindness
www.dailymail.co.uk

Wallabies are forced to wear a WHITE jersey in 'woke' World Rugby move that could see the famous All Blacks also made to abandon iconic brand for a white alternative
Click to expand...

I've read this article several times and still can't tell if it's written in jest
 
It's the Daily Mail...

"I doesn't affect me so I don't see why things should change"
 
How dare they try and include people with a fairly common disability and completely ignore our traditional colours, even though we're happy to play with the kit just to make fans buy more.
 
Reiser99 said:
How dare they try and include people with a fairly common disability and completely ignore our traditional colours, even though we're happy to play with the kit just to make fans buy more.
Click to expand...
And colour clash kits for those with average sight have existed for ages.
 
you either get to write it off as an expense or have insurance pay for it. You can't write it off if you are reimbursed.

It makes sense that most news companies have libel insurance but I'd imagine newscorp's premiums would be pretty high.
 
McTallshort said:
It absolutely isn't. They are also being sued by another litigation firm for over 2 billion, their own shareholders are suing them and a producer of Tucker Carlson is also suing.
Click to expand...
Google tells me Fox has between $4-$5 billion in cash holdings. They'll **** this 750mil.
 

Similar threads

Bada-Bing!
Antisocial, societal issues thread
7 8 9
Replies
163
Views
7K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Biking thread
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
5K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Ukraine War thread
27 28 29
Replies
566
Views
24K
Which Tyler
Which Tyler
T
Is anyone using a club management system for their local club?
Replies
0
Views
887
Try-Hard Tackler
T
M
Had to stare someone down at a red light
Replies
6
Views
1K
The Seeker
The Seeker

Latest posts

Top