• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

RAT MARTIN'S OFFSHORE STASH

As a side note to this I was away playing golf the end of last week and football came up in conversation. One of the people playing mentioned he had done business with RM many years ago and he always waited until legal action was threatened before settling his debt.

In the end they stopped dealing with RM completely.
 
Quite. Net income is not cash flow but P&L. And net income doesn't necessarily follow through into cash flow. Indeed, the net income may be related to inter-company debt/transactions that will never result in positive cash flow.

Probably the interesting number is that a credit line of maybe $100k (£80k) might be appropriate with moderate risk. That doesn't suggest a huge offshore cash pile to put it mildly.

Thanks for this KB - always appreciate your input.

Would you say that these details suggest that USD 6.15 million did pass through that company at some stage (presumably in 2021)?

And not having any accountancy background myself, does U.S accountancy practice mean the way we should interpret these figures might differ ?

 
I wonder if Mezcal features in any of the offshore bank account / tax leaks that have occured over the years, e.g., the Panama Papers

How would one find out about that?
 
Thanks for this KB - always appreciate your input.

Would you say that these details suggest that USD 6.15 million did pass through that company at some stage (presumably in 2021)?

And not having any accountancy background myself, does U.S accountancy practice mean the way we should interpret these figures might differ ?

Well pass through as in it was showing in the accounts yes, but in the balance sheet it may very well be showing as a debtor (quite possibly a group company i.e sums owed to the company) rather than cash.

In this case there are no meaningful difference between accounting methods between UK and US - disclosure requirements is another thing entirely and hence why we can’t see what we really want to see.

I’m afraid what we see on the search does tell us how much if any cash is (or was) there, if any. As I say the moderate risk credit rating, and the fact that it suggests a credit line of £80k doesn’t suggest anything significant- there again I doubt there is much trading history either and that might effect the rating.
 
Well pass through as in it was showing in the accounts yes, but in the balance sheet it may very well be showing as a debtor (quite possibly a group company i.e sums owed to the company) rather than cash.

In this case there are no meaningful difference between accounting methods between UK and US - disclosure requirements is another thing entirely and hence why we can’t see what we really want to see.

I’m afraid what we see on the search does tell us how much if any cash is (or was) there, if any. As I say the moderate risk credit rating, and the fact that it suggests a credit line of £80k doesn’t suggest anything significant- there again I doubt there is much trading history either and that might effect the rating.

Your last paragraph about the credit rating had also occurred to me - not much regular activity

Having thought a bit more about the first paragraph of your post - if its an inter-company accounting exercise, presumably its still of benefit to one of the Martin web of companies? An if there's no benefit to those companies what's the point of having an offshore account?
 
As a side note to this I was away playing golf the end of last week and football came up in conversation. One of the people playing mentioned he had done business with RM many years ago and he always waited until legal action was threatened before settling his debt.

In the end they stopped dealing with RM completely.
Rat thinks that no common decency, rules, regulations or laws apply to him - he is a disgrace.
 
Your last paragraph about the credit rating had also occurred to me - not much regular activity

Having thought a bit more about the first paragraph of your post - if its an inter-company accounting exercise, presumably its still of benefit to one of the Martin web of companies? An if there's no benefit to those companies what's the point of having an offshore account?
Not sure it’s necessarily of any benefit if it just nets out.

If you want to understand more about pluses and minuses of offshore companies and why you would incorporate one this isn’t a bad article


Fill your boots
 
Not sure it’s necessarily of any benefit if it just nets out.

If you want to understand more about pluses and minuses of offshore companies and why you would incorporate one this isn’t a bad article


Fill your boots
Thanks KB i've had a quick trawl through that and it pretty much confirms my thinking. Offshore accounts are primarily set up to avoid or sometimes evade tax in other jurisdictions, hide assets or make them difficult for creditors to get hold of. Very Rat Martin I would say

It also says they are expensive to set up and maintain which essentially begs the question - why bother unless you've got something substantial to hide/gain ??
 
Thanks KB i've had a quick trawl through that and it pretty much confirms my thinking. Offshore accounts are primarily set up to avoid or sometimes evade tax in other jurisdictions, hide assets or make them difficult for creditors to get hold of. Very Rat Martin I would say

It also says they are expensive to set up and maintain which essentially begs the question - why bother unless you've got something substantial to hide/gain ??
To avoid tax…:-) They do that legally. Setting up a legal way of achieving tax avoidance and then committing tax evasion somewhat defeats the point (of course it happens).
Cost of setting up is not prohibitive if it’s part of long term planning.
 
To avoid tax…:-) They do that legally. Setting up a legal way of achieving tax avoidance and then committing tax evasion somewhat defeats the point (of course it happens).
Cost of setting up is not prohibitive if it’s part of long term planning.

Well we can agree that how much he has in there is all conjecture but there's a simple way of establishing the facts - if RM has nothing to hide he can release the full MEZCAL accounts for public consumption (and the overdue SUFC ones while he's at it). Then we'll all know its all above board, ticketyboo and nothing to hide.

As he said to Medway the other day - the truth will out
 

ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services
Estuary MFF2
Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top