Ipswich Witches 2026

[Sir Sidney]

1 hour ago, cowboy cookie returns? said:

In short if you own company A that is making a profit & company B your loss making speedway team you can transfer losses from the speedway team to your profit making company reducing the profit that company makes & also the amount of tax that you pay.

 

 

I follow that, but, isn't the net position worse than if you didn't own the loss making company?

[cowboy cookie returns?]

5 minutes ago, Sir Sidney said:

I follow that, but, isn't the net position worse than if you didn't own the loss making company?

No it’s comes down as a legal way to pay less tax on profit. Plenty of business people do this from small one man bands to big corporate multi nationals.

 

[Sir Sidney]

1 minute ago, cowboy cookie returns? said:

No it’s comes down as a legal way to pay less tax on profit. Plenty of business people do this from small one man bands to big corporate multi nationals.

 

I still don't see that. I understand you would pay less tax on the combined profit, but the profit would be lower, and therefore the net position worse

I'll look for a worked example to get it clear in my mind. 

If it were beneficial to own a loss making company then every profitable company would take one on.

[mikebv]

18 hours ago, cowboy cookie returns? said:

How can he reassure the supporters?

For whatever reason something radical changed between the end of October & mid November that meant that he didn’t that he could or wanted to run Ipswich anymore.

The statement put out when he announced it was going up for sale was clear enough. He isn’t running Ipswich in 2026 if a buyer can be found then it will carry on.

He can’t guarantee he’ll find a buyer & as Louis isn’t going to run it in 26 no chance of being able to provide guarantees.

Unlike the other promoters Louis doesn’t have other businesses that he can offset loses against. 
 

Louis seems to have put his family & financial security above running Ipswich speedway in a climate that could see him sustain losses that he can’t afford. 
 

Because of that he has my support because no one else on here would take a major gamble like that with no other income stream.
 

 

100% agree, however...

A fair few Ipswich fans, three weeks or so ago on here, were, post after post, calling out the Glasgow and Poole  promoters for not running in the top league and being prepared to potentially lose money in doing so...

I presume these people will now be urging Chris to do the same?....

[old bob at herne bay]

All this criticism of Christopher Louis ….

What about the other let downs of promoters at Birmingham and Oxford…….they deserted the premier league without even a whimper of protest ?? 
 

Something seriously wrong with the “Set Up” in the PL believe me 😂😂😂

[old bob at herne bay]

And let’s not forget Sheffield , who only after some arm twisting and sudden change of mind ?? Have decided to run in the PL. 

[Byker Biker]

41 minutes ago, Sir Sidney said:

I still don't see that. I understand you would pay less tax on the combined profit, but the profit would be lower, and therefore the net position worse

I'll look for a worked example to get it clear in my mind. 

If it were beneficial to own a loss making company then every profitable company would take one on.

You are correct in principle but the loss making company may keep people in jobs and or be a supplier or forward facing business of the profitable company. OR it could be an ego boosting business like a yacht charter company, football club or Speedway. It also allows a profitable company to sponsor a loss making sports club that in turn makes the sports club profitable too, ideal if you may wish to sell at some point.

That's all legal of course 

[Teromaafan]

25 minutes ago, old bob at herne bay said:

All this criticism of Christopher Louis ….

What about the other let downs of promoters at Birmingham and Oxford…….they deserted the premier league without even a whimper of protest ?? 
 

Something seriously wrong with the “Set Up” in the PL believe me 😂😂😂

Birmingham have struggled for a couple of years with crowd levels and limped from season to season, unable to attract quality riders and then lost their track. Not quite the same as the Ipswich situation is it?

[TheTopDrawer]

34 minutes ago, Teromaafan said:

Birmingham have struggled for a couple of years with crowd levels and limped from season to season, unable to attract quality riders and then lost their track. Not quite the same as the Ipswich situation is it?

Birmingham aren't running because their stadium was demolished from under them.   Not because Nigel Tolley spat his dummy.

If Birmingham stadium was still there, then Nigel Tolley would still be there.

[ouch]

1 hour ago, old bob at herne bay said:

All this criticism of Christopher Louis ….

What about the other let downs of promoters at Birmingham and Oxford…….they deserted the premier league without even a whimper of protest ?? 
 

Something seriously wrong with the “Set Up” in the PL believe me 😂😂😂

Birmingham closed due to development not self interest and having a pop at Oxford who have gone from three leagues to two is rich when Louis won’t even run a junior team, despite all the hype about a run of the mill, one off, end of season junior meeting being touted as the most innovative initiatives in decades. Spin at its finest.

[ouch]

1 hour ago, old bob at herne bay said:

All this criticism of Christopher Louis ….

What about the other let downs of promoters at Birmingham and Oxford…….they deserted the premier league without even a whimper of protest ?? 
 

Something seriously wrong with the “Set Up” in the PL believe me 😂😂😂

Birmingham closed due to development not self interest and having a pop at Oxford who have gone from three leagues to two is rich when Louis won’t even run a junior team, despite all the hype about a run of the mill, one off, end of season junior meeting being touted as the most innovative initiatives in decades. Spin at its finest.

[Aries]

1 hour ago, mikebv said:

100% agree, however...

A fair few Ipswich fans, three weeks or so ago on here, were, post after post, calling out the Glasgow and Poole  promoters for not running in the top league and being prepared to potentially lose money in doing so...

I presume these people will now be urging Chris to do the same?....

It was just TTT wasn’t it Mike? A Peterborough fan..

Edited Monday at 11:07 AM by Aries

[BluPanther]

2 hours ago, norbold said:

Thanks, Bluey.

However, are you sure it's not all just some sort of deep state conspiracy?

I'm pretty sure neither of those offers were from Blackrock...

Happy Christmas Norby...

[TTT]

Cool heads needed.

[Bald Bloke]

22 hours ago, RoundTheBoards said:

Maybe balance sheet plus 3 x yearly profits?

Companies house balance sheet shows £3.5K.   (There are no riding assets anymore, I think someone said the air-fence needed replacing soon).   Louis seems to want out because he feels it's no longer profitable.  So 3 x nothing is nothing.    So £3.5k plus whatever goodwill valuation you put on owning the name.

In short, something is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it.  So, if there are 2 offers that exceed my £3.5k, take the best one.

Read on here he has turned down the 2 offers, what they consisted of we don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't come back from his holiday and pick his toys back up, and find a way to get through 26.I hope so anyway. 

[1 valve]

4 hours ago, Sir Sidney said:

I follow that, but, isn't the net position worse than if you didn't own the loss making company?

You are correct. If company X makes a profit of 100 and company Z loses 50 then a person owning both companies would be worse off than if he only owned company X.

He also doesn't get to offset the total loss of 50 in his tax return only the taxable value. So say he is due to pay 35% on his 100 profit i.e 35 he would be able to offset his loss of 50 x.35 = 17.50 giving a final tax calculation of 35 - 17.5 meaning he would pay only 17.5 instead of 35. 
So
If he had one company that made 100 profit, after tax he would make 65 net.
If he owned to companies, one making 100 and one losing 50 he would make 32.50 net   

Also worth considering that if a person owns two companies then they must be declared in the eyes of the taxman as being a part of a holding group or that a single person owns both.
 

[1 valve]

6 hours ago, cowboy cookie returns? said:

In short if you own company A that is making a profit & company B your loss making speedway team you can transfer losses from the speedway team to your profit making company reducing the profit that company makes & also the amount of tax that you pay.

 

 

Yes less tax is paid but ultimately the net profit (after tax) is also less because of the loss making company.

In simple terms its actually good for a company to be paying tax (after correctly taking into account all of the available allowances) because that translates into a measurement of success. 

 

[YeOldPitGate]

1 hour ago, 1 valve said:

Yes less tax is paid but ultimately the net profit (after tax) is also less because of the loss making company.

In simple terms its actually good for a company to be paying tax (after correctly taking into account all of the available allowances) because that translates into a measurement of success. 

 

Spot on 1valve my friend pretty much said as much it just makes the losses in his pub in theory lower but he would be way better off if he just owned his cash cow insurance business. Without straying to much into politics he mentioned when Reeves lowered the employer ni threshold in 2024 that alone cost the pub an extra 45k a year for zero benefit other than paying more to the tax man. So your burger, bun, salad and chips has to go up from £16 to £20 to cover it another reason pubs are going the same way as speedway tracks.

[old bob at herne bay]

And let’s not forget Sheffield , who only after some arm twisting and sudden change of mind ?? Have decided to run in the PL. 

[old bob at herne bay]

Shame Oxford didn’t choose to run in the PL and NDL ……..