Readers' letters

Sam didn't deserve £1m

Wednesday, 5th October 2016, 5:42 pm
Updated Tuesday, 25th October 2016, 7:27 pm
Sam Allardyce should not have been given a £1m severance payment says a reader. See letter

Reading and hearing about the demise of Sam Allardyce,

I am amazed that the Football Association feels it appropriate to pay him £1m as a severance payment brought about by his dishonesty.

Allardyce talks of “entrapment winning”. Well, Mr Allardyce, you got that wrong. It wasn’t entrapment, it was your apparent greed which brought you down, and nothing else.

Sign up to our daily newsletter

The i newsletter cut through the noise

If you hadn’t been at the meeting then you would still have the precious job you always wanted.

You should have more sense, especially when you clearly didn’t need the money, being paid handsomely for the job as England manager.

Why should the FA pay such an amount to someone who lets down his country, his family, his employers, the paying football fans and himself?

It is a vast amount for failing himself and everyone else. The powers-that-be who control our national sport should not allow anyone who succumbs to underhanded tactics to be allowed such an amount or be anywhere near a management position in football.

It is easy to apologise, as he has, but then he tries to blame it on others – what a disgrace.

He led a charmed life, as many highly paid managers do in football, but he insulted the good guys.

Shaun Kavanagh

via email


We should be paying less

When I hear that the car manufacturers expect a handout if they end up paying a tariff to export into Europe following Brexit, I admire their audacity.

Currently, someone in New York State can buy a British made Supercharged Range Rover for £20,000 less than we can, even after paying local taxes.

This, remember, despite our not yet having a Trade Agreement with the US.

Any tariff imposed on our goods by the EU must surely be matched by a corresponding tariff on theirs. As they export to us far more than we export to them, we will get a tidy income from this arrangement, from which we can easily afford to compensate UK companies whose profits suffer as a result of tariffs paid to the EU.

However, the car companies can’t have it both ways. We should expect to pay less than other countries for British-made products, not more.

Paul Rouse

Address supplied


Brexit time to abolish VAT

Although lots of issues concerning Brexit have already been mentioned by various interested parties, for instance, the single market or free movement of people, no word so far about the future of VAT, the most insidious tax of all.

Just like the EU itself, you have to be over age 61 to remember life as an adult before VAT, the tax used to pay for our EU membership.

Prior to 1973, there was no purchase tax levied on luxury items such as jewellery, new cars (although not on commercial vehicles) and electrical or photographic equipment like TVs, washers and cameras.

The overall effect of VAT has been to increase the cost of living substantially for those who can least afford it, that 
is the working person and OAP.

With the multi-million pound EU subscriptions soon not to be paid, shouldn’t VAT either be abolished or greatly reduced to help the ordinary people?

DS Boyes

Address supplied