Brian Deane on Breakfast

[mancunianblade]

Yes but from 66/67 our lovely Government will give you £12.5k.

The beauty of relative poverty, cf with footballers etc, is that we have little to invest in speculative investments. ISA'S is about as good as it gets!
I say this from Italy struggling along.

The greatest and worst country to live at the same time.

 

[mancunianblade]

There is a lot to this story and I’m surprised it’s taken this long to come out.

I have sympathy as these are people who aren’t financially savvy but were talented and with that talent came wealth but a lack of knowledge on how to manage that new found wealth.

On the flip side they may not have known the long term ramifications in full but they were advised on how it worked and many just kept going back for more. There is a lot of bitterness and understandibly so amongst many players from that era and many also blame certain players who were very vocal in backing this scheme, encouraging others to do so.

I’ve heard stories of former players dreading opening brown letters and having all their assets and even phone contracts in their partners names

 

[robbiez666]

It's so easy to get scammed nowadays, I don't know how you can't have sympathy for the victims.

 

[Mad Mick]

While I don’t doubt there are good financial advisors around, I wouldn’t trust one with the steam off my piss. It may be costing me money in the long run to invest where I’m comfortable with the returns and investing on a DIY basis rather than where they’d invest. But I’m happy in the knowledge that I’m not lining the pockets of an IFA with commission every year.

IFA’s charge fees. Commission was abolished years ago. You get to know the fees in advance. I quite understand people wanting to handle their own portfolio's and there are lots of platforms to do this. There are products out there where you need advice. These might not be available without an IFA or may be too complicated for many people.

 

[Kenilworth]

It's so easy to get scammed nowadays, I don't know how you can't have sympathy for the victims.

Wait until you age, Robbie, and your cognitive ability begins to decline.
Many people who have been quite tech savvy end up struggling as their dexterity reduces (arthritis) and their mind deteriorates. The rush to offer everything on a digital app or platform without a contingency that is more simple or manual is disenfranchising many people as they age. It also makes it easier for the fraudsters to act at scale and scam more people. As people become less able to cope they get more confused and susceptible to this kind of stuff.

It’s not always naïveté and fuckwittery.

 

[robbiez666]

Wait until you age, Robbie, and your cognitive ability begins to decline.
Many people who have been quite tech savvy end up struggling as their dexterity reduces (arthritis) and their mind deteriorates. The rush to offer everything on a digital app or platform without a contingency that is more simple or manual is disenfranchising many people as they age. It also makes it easier for the fraudsters to act at scale and scam more people. As people become less able to cope they get more confused and susceptible to this kind of stuff.

It’s not always naïveté and fuckwittery.

It's terrible how the elderly are just being left out to dry. Unless they have relatives to keep an eye on them, they're screwed. Banks closing means they often can't do basic banking. All app or internet now.

 

[Kenilworth]

It's terrible how the elderly are just being left out to dry. Unless they have relatives to keep an eye on them, they're screwed. Banks closing means they often can't do basic banking. All app or internet now.

Robbie.

 

[Karlos]

Couple of things that got me in the programme was Deanos reaction to the compensation question, when he looked at the interviewer mystified and also the part where Craig Short's wife said the average loss was around £1m but one individual is in it to the tune of £20m! Has to be someone from recent years when the wages have shot up big style.

 

[Houston_Blade]

IFA’s charge fees. Commission was abolished years ago. You get to know the fees in advance. I quite understand people wanting to handle their own portfolio's and there are lots of platforms to do this. There are products out there where you need advice. These might not be available without an IFA or may be too complicated for many people.

Most I’ve spoken to want a fee up front and a % management fee annually based on the fund value. That’s commission to me, just under another guise. The bit I can’t get my head around is that you pay it whether the value is going up, down or staying the same. It should be based on good performance only.

 

[HD8 Blades]

Disappointed by this thread. Thought it was going to be Brian Deane talking about his favourite cereals

 

[Edgar Allan Poo]

Disappointed by this thread. Thought it was going to be Brian Deane talking about his favourite cereals

In my dreams he shared my sadness over the disappearance of Golden Grahams from the supermarket shelves and we would often reminisce about the breakfast scene of yesteryear.

 

[Edgar Allan Poo]

...and where does the blame for the tragic loss of Golden Grahams lie? I'm glad you asked that. I'll tell you where the blame justly lies. It lies firmly and squarely at the feet of the recently departed CEO of Nestlé who was just too busy (allegedly) bonking his own staff to concern himself over the oh so trivial matter of Blades breakfasts, that's where it lies. But why, you might ask, can't we just have Cinnamon Grahams you might ask. I'll tell you why, as you have asked, because they are an abonimination that's why along with anything else tainted by this evil spice....

 

[The Crab]

...and where does the blame for the tragic loss of Golden Grahams lie? I'm glad you asked that. I'll tell you where the blame justly lies. It lies firmly and squarely at the feet of the recently departed CEO of Nestlé who was just too busy (allegedly) bonking his own staff to concern himself over the oh so trivial matter of Blades breakfasts, that's where it lies. But why, you might ask, can't we just have Cinnamon Grahams you might ask. I'll tell you why, as you have asked, because they are an abonimination that's why along with anything else tainted by this evil spice....

I love cinnamon. Next time I have a ham and pineapple pizza I might put that on top…

 

[programmechap]

I obviously don't know all the facts here, but I'd say rule no 1 in stuff like this is that if someone is trying to sell you a scheme that either (a) promises a return way above normal returns on investments or (b) promises you you will pay far less tax than you would normally have to pay, then run a mile. It's almost certainly a scam.

As I say, people like Deano weren't poor when they retired 2005ish. A normal sensible investment policy would have given him a nice return and given his prominence ( best SUFC player in the last 50 years and scorer of the first PL goal) he was never going to be short of media work etc

 

[Edgar Allan Poo]

I love cinnamon. Next time I have a ham and pineapple pizza I might put that on top…

You should shortly receive a generic photo of me holding a phone to my ear with one hand and a pen in the other where I appear to be paying attention.

 

[LBA_Blade]

The real thing to address is to what extent are players being educated on this sort of thing, from a player welfare perspective? All a bit rich in some cases considering some of the shady regimes that own and run many football clubs but nevertheless, something must need to change because I bet the old pros of years gone by were just left to their own devices, hence why some of them are struggling now.

There will be some with no qualifications or skills other than playing football and if a gig in the game isn't forthcoming, there's not a huge number of options available so invest their money to try and sustain the life they're used to having, get stung, don't have a huge month to month wage coming in and its something of a fall from grace for many.

There must be a level of naivety for a lot of players who have lived in something of a bubble away from the realities of life where agents and the clubs sort out every aspect of life for them. Send some of them round the supermarket and they wouldn't have a clue, never mind ringing the bank to sort a mortgage out or buying and insuring a car.

Academy players might get some sort of advice on how to live their lives, especially as many of them won't make it and will have to go and do some kind of paid work, something many of them might not have ever done before but a lot must rest on having a family who can steer them on the right path.

I know in rugby league its a very big thing where the players earn decent wages compared to most people but certainly not enough to retire on and do all sorts of different training schemes, apprenticeships, degrees and all sorts in order to keep themselves, knowing that when they get past 30 and are near the end, they can't all be coaches or talk bollocks on Sky.

What sort of guidance are guys in League One/Two getting, who are probably on similar money?

Totally agreed with this, the average salary for League 2 (although this was when Wrexham were in it so might be less now) is £104,000 before tax a year, so approx £70,000 a year without any bonuses etc. A decent wage and one that if you were on for 10-15 years you could sustain a decent lifestyle however defiantly not a retirement wage unless you are very savvy. It would be the perfect opportunity for someone like the Open University or a local smaller Uni to step in and offer something that can assist with getting a career, whether that be business management/ a small set of courses or something. You would like to think the support network was in place.

 

[71Blade]

I think you need to give the program a watch and your opinion might change.

Just because they earned decent money, doesn’t mean they deserve to have their lives destroyed.

Totally agree Rod Wallace situation brings it home. Also when Deano gets the letter highlighting ex head of the LMA on the payroll for 4 years all tip of the iceberg stuff im sure but you can really feel the embarrassment from some of them based on how it's affected their families. Its hard not to feel anything when you have watched it and I was in the serves you right judgemental camp prior to watching it. Shut me right up

 

[Sportbilly /Detroit Blade]

Most I’ve spoken to want a fee up front and a % management fee annually based on the fund value. That’s commission to me, just under another guise. The bit I can’t get my head around is that you pay it whether the value is going up, down or staying the same. It should be based on good performance only.

This is spot on.

Most people wouldn't have an issue with commission if it's coming out of good investment profits.

The fact most pick up irrespective of how their investments have done is laughable.

 

[Isaw Joeshaw]

I’ve just finished watching the recording I made of the BBC programme on this topic and have to say that I have every sympathy for all those who’ve suffered at the hands of the obvious shysters who got them into the situation they found themselves in .

One thing the programme did not explain was that of how and why they came to receive enormous tax bills from HMRC.
I could understand this to be the case if they had received significant returns from the large sums they were persuaded to invest , but in most cases the opposite was the case and they lost all of most of it , which in itself is bad enough .

I know that this forum has a number of contributors who are far more knowledgeable on such matters than I am and hope that at least one or more of them can shed some light on this apparent anomaly , which is having such a devastating effect on their lives .

 

[Nick Jansky]

I obviously don't know all the facts here, but I'd say rule no 1 in stuff like this is that if someone is trying to sell you a scheme that either (a) promises a return way above normal returns on investments or (b) promises you you will pay far less tax than you would normally have to pay, then run a mile. It's almost certainly a scam.

As I say, people like Deano weren't poor when they retired 2005ish. A normal sensible investment policy would have given him a nice return and given his prominence ( best SUFC player in the last 50 years and scorer of the first PL goal) he was never going to be short of media work etc

Don’t forget that at the time they entered into them many of these schemes were widely believed to work, and most were supported by a Counsel’s opinion (often from the now discredited Robert Venables KC). The landscape was very different at that time, including the approach to them taken by HMRC. These were the days before Accelerated Payment Notices and Follower Notices, and binding precedents that scuppered most of the schemes hadn’t been set by the courts. HMRC now have legislation to attack the schemes that simply didn’t exist back then. Before rushing to judgment you have to view it in the context of what the landscape was like when people participated in the schemes, not how things are today. It was regarded as acceptable tax planning and was sold as such.

 

[Mad Mick]

Most I’ve spoken to want a fee up front and a % management fee annually based on the fund value. That’s commission to me, just under another guise. The bit I can’t get my head around is that you pay it whether the value is going up, down or staying the same. It should be based on good performance only.

If you've spoken to an IFA, you would get an option to pay fees on an hourly rate, so not linked to your investments. However, most people opt for an initial fee taken out of the investment and an annual percentage taken out of the investment. The fees do go up or down depending on the performance of your portfolio if you opt for a percentage. Why not opt for an hourly fee for regular reviews, that way you are only paying for the IFA's time and knowledge. Also, advisers take a holistic view when giving advice. For instance, a typical portfolio might include deposit accounts, cash ISAs or NS&I products. My portfolio includes most of these as well as corporate bonds, Gilts and company shares. I also have a substantial amount in a Life Insurance Investment Bond. These are very handy if you require a regular income with no immediate liability to income tax.

 

[Sean Thornton]

T

I’ve just finished watching the recording I made of the BBC programme on this topic and have to say that I have every sympathy for all those who’ve suffered at the hands of the obvious shysters who got them into the situation they found themselves in .

One thing the programme did not explain was that of how and why they came to receive enormous tax bills from HMRC.
I could understand this to be the case if they had received significant returns from the large sums they were persuaded to invest , but in most cases the opposite was the case and they lost all of most of it , which in itself is bad enough .

I know that this forum has a number of contributors who are far more knowledgeable on such matters than I am and hope that at least one or more of them can shed some light on this apparent anomaly , which is having such a devastating effect on their lives .

They had tax relief - lowering bills - in the tax years affected. HMRC are simply reassessing those years as the tax relief claimed was denied due to the scheme used no being allowable after legal challenges.

In short it’s money they’ve effectively had which the weren’t entitled to. The figures due will also include back dated interest and probable penalties.

 

[CrookesBlade]

The bit on Howard Wilkinson was pretty damming, not the only unsavoury thing I’ve read about him.

 

[diplomat]

Of course you are correct my friend. But I guess that then begs the question, can they interpret the information and also be sure its genuine? So ultimately it still come down to trust of whoever is interpreting it and advising them.

There are loads of dodgy scams that have "barrister approval" or some such on it but then it turns out that the legal opinion was from someone who had no real clue about that particular area of law but was happy to trouser a few quid to put their name on it saying that "in their opinion" it was all super and above board, when really they didn't know or give a toss either way.

 

[Panini]

Most I’ve spoken to want a fee up front and a % management fee annually based on the fund value. That’s commission to me, just under another guise. The bit I can’t get my head around is that you pay it whether the value is going up, down or staying the same. It should be based on good performance only.

The % fees are negligible compared to the old murky commission world. Most are around 1%, I saw some commission as much as 40%. (If you want to read into it more, I'd recommend the Retail Distribution Review which came in from the end of 2012).

The advice industry is heavily regulated today, larger firms have significant internal audit departments.

Re good performance, how would you define that? Plenty of people could have lost fortunes by getting twitchy when their ISAs bombed at the start of covid, but their advisors stayed calm and patient knowing they would recover.

There's obvious risk to any investment but it's not correct to think of it as some sort of fancy betting.

 

[diplomat]

Most I’ve spoken to want a fee up front and a % management fee annually based on the fund value. That’s commission to me, just under another guise. The bit I can’t get my head around is that you pay it whether the value is going up, down or staying the same. It should be based on good performance only.

Not really because nothing goes up in a straight line. If fee income ceased for 18 months because of the credit crunch, for example, then every single business would go cease to exist. The advice is to manage people and their expectations and risk whilst removing something that some people are not able to, or don't want to deal with. Performance based fees would encourage additional risk to be taken that might not be appropriate too. There's an argument for flat fees but that firm would be an outlier. Like most things, if you don't feel like you don't need or want the service then do it yourself. I have seen a lot of harm come to people who act with a little bit of knowledge and they really don't know what they are doing though. The whole thing should be a relationship really. The value comes from the planning and reacting to individual circumstances and needs, not pretending to be some kind of super stock picker. Sadly there are still a few wide pinstripe suited salesman types but they have mainly been regulated out and appear in places where there is less oversight on them. Re ongoing fees - old commission was paid regardless of whether you ever spoke to the person that set you an ISA/Pension up many moons ago. Ongoing charges are only levied if agreed upon and there should be a quantified service being provided for that. Importantly they can be turned off. It's not perfect but it's miles better than it was 20 years ago.

 

[diplomat]

The % fees are negligible compared to the old murky commission world. Most are around 1%, I saw some commission as much as 40%. (If you want to read into it more, I'd recommend the Retail Distribution Review which came in from the end of 2012).

The advice industry is heavily regulated today, larger firms have significant internal audit departments.

Re good performance, how would you define that? Plenty of people could have lost fortunes by getting twitchy when their ISAs bombed at the start of covid, but their advisors stayed calm and patient knowing they would recover.

There's obvious risk to any investment but it's not correct to think of it as some sort of fancy betting.

Excellent points. Some firms are still trying to skirt round the edges using UCIS funds that pay and undisclosed enormous commission and anyone running those firms want booting out but weirdly the regulator seems to struggle with controlling regulated firms using unregulated investments or referring to an obvious sister company with the same directors that does it for them. I've not seen many but they tend to be ruinous.

 

[Isaw Joeshaw]

T


They had tax relief - lowering bills - in the tax years affected. HMRC are simply reassessing those years as the tax relief claimed was denied due to the scheme used no being allowable after legal challenges.

In short it’s money they’ve effectively had which the weren’t entitled to. The figures due will also include back dated interest and probable penalties.

Many thanks .

 

[Houston_Blade]

The % fees are negligible compared to the old murky commission world. Most are around 1%, I saw some commission as much as 40%. (If you want to read into it more, I'd recommend the Retail Distribution Review which came in from the end of 2012).

The advice industry is heavily regulated today, larger firms have significant internal audit departments.

Re good performance, how would you define that? Plenty of people could have lost fortunes by getting twitchy when their ISAs bombed at the start of covid, but their advisors stayed calm and patient knowing they would recover.

There's obvious risk to any investment but it's not correct to think of it as some sort of fancy betting.

Not really because nothing goes up in a straight line. If fee income ceased for 18 months because of the credit crunch, for example, then every single business would go cease to exist. The advice is to manage people and their expectations and risk whilst removing something that some people are not able to, or don't want to deal with. Performance based fees would encourage additional risk to be taken that might not be appropriate too. There's an argument for flat fees but that firm would be an outlier. Like most things, if you don't feel like you don't need or want the service then do it yourself. I have seen a lot of harm come to people who act with a little bit of knowledge and they really don't know what they are doing though. The whole thing should be a relationship really. The value comes from the planning and reacting to individual circumstances and needs, not pretending to be some kind of super stock picker. Sadly there are still a few wide pinstripe suited salesman types but they have mainly been regulated out and appear in places where there is less oversight on them. Re ongoing fees - old commission was paid regardless of whether you ever spoke to the person that set you an ISA/Pension up many moons ago. Ongoing charges are only levied if agreed upon and there should be a quantified service being provided for that. Importantly they can be turned off. It's not perfect but it's miles better than it was 20 years ago.

I’m sure there are reputable IFA’s and investment companies out there. Fisher investments are the ones that seem to bug me all the time at the moment, I’ve had De Veré in the past relentlessly calling and then I have a poor perception of IFA’s mainly based on the lads from school I know who went into that career. They went car sales/estate agent and then into financial advice having been thick as a plank at school. I don’t think I’d trust any of them with a penny of mine and they seem to get customers, worrying!

My dad was an IFA for a few years when he got fed up of working for corporations and before he owned his own business and he always tells me about some of the shysters he worked with 30 years ago, it just seems a bit seedy to me.

I don’t pretend to know better but I invest large sums of money on behalf of an international business as well as oversee the finances of a smallish uk business so I think I have more of a grasp of what to invest in than some of the professionals out there, they are just glorified sales people looking for their next pay day rather than people I’d want to engage in a long term relationship with where a decent amount of money is at stake.

One day I’ll have to bite the bullet as it becomes hard work to track investments and accounts and that’s where the annual fee is probably earned. At the moment I can manage with a spreadsheet and calendar reminders, I’ll also probably need access to a chunk of it quickly if and when we move back to the UK so tying it up longer term makes little sense.

 

[diplomat]

I’m sure there are reputable IFA’s and investment companies out there. Fisher investments are the ones that seem to bug me all the time at the moment, I’ve had De Veré in the past relentlessly calling and then I have a poor perception of IFA’s mainly based on the lads from school I know who went into that career. They went car sales/estate agent and then into financial advice having been thick as a plank at school. I don’t think I’d trust any of them with a penny of mine and they seem to get customers, worrying!

My dad was an IFA for a few years when he got fed up of working for corporations and before he owned his own business and he always tells me about some of the shysters he worked with 30 years ago, it just seems a bit seedy to me.

I don’t pretend to know better but I invest large sums of money on behalf of an international business as well as oversee the finances of a smallish uk business so I think I have more of a grasp of what to invest in than some of the professionals out there, they are just glorified sales people looking for their next pay day rather than people I’d want to engage in a long term relationship with where a decent amount of money is at stake.

One day I’ll have to bite the bullet as it becomes hard work to track investments and accounts and that’s where the annual fee is probably earned. At the moment I can manage with a spreadsheet and calendar reminders, I’ll also probably need access to a chunk of it quickly if and when we move back to the UK so tying it up longer term makes little sense.

All fair comment mate, there are some really lazy thick fuckers. A lot have been moved on and found out. Funnily enough the more "successful" or legitimate the brand seems they are often the most proficient at removing as much as your money as possible, as quickly as possible.