PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Bluesince1979 said:
Was away over the weekend and saw a red i know. Decent enough bloke, good job, seemingly a sensible man

Told him of the rumours that charges have been dropped, told him what the city lawyer told me. His reply …

“Well youve obviously bribed someone”.

I laughed as i thought he was joking but no, he was deadly serious. I asked what he means and he said , “youve bribed the FA”.

The FA? What we have drove to london with a bag of cash to bribe ‘The FA’. Couldnt be arsed going into it as regards what the fuck the FA have to do with all this, nor how he thinks the bribe went down.

He then said “if you get away with it then forest and everton should sue”

Thats what we are up against. Idiots
Click to expand...
Anyone faced with rag cretins like this, just remind them they're under investigation by HMRC over image rights payments to players.

The allegation is that they've overpaid these, which reduced their corporate tax & NI liabilities as the players themselves are personally liable to these. I'm told that HMRC are claiming a sum of somewhere in the region of £100m from them over these payments. That's potentially tax evasion.

If HMRC are right, then that means their expenses in the accounts will have been understated. I wonder if the PL will open an investigation, in the same way they're investigating our image rights payments via Fordham? Because they'll have done pretty well what we're accused of, which is presenting inaccurate accounts.
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
Anyone faced with rag cretins like this, just remind them they're under investigation by HMRC over image rights payments to players.

The allegation is that they've overpaid these, which reduced their corporate tax & NI liabilities as the players themselves are personally liable to these. Im told that HMRC are claiming a sum of somewhere in the region of £100m from them over these payments.

If HMRC are right, then that means their expenses in the accounts will have been understated. I wonder if the PL will open an investigation, in the same way they're investigating our image rights payments via Fordham? Because they'll have done pretty well what we're accused of, which is presenting inaccurate accounts.
Click to expand...
Wow.
 
Bluesince1979 said:
He never mentioned anything of the sort. For all his silly opinions on City the man isnt a racist and silly to go down that route.

He , like most rags, just struggles with citys dominance so spouts crap.

But stupid to go down the road of saying what you said
Click to expand...
I never suggested he was a racist, so don’t put words in my mouth thanks
.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
The Law could not be clearer....

The requirement to hold a TV Licence and to pay a fee for it is mandated by law under the Communications Act 2003 and the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (as amended)
Click to expand...
Even if you don’t access bbc output? I’m not sure that you need to have one in that case.
In fact you don’t need one to listen to any or all bbc radio / bbc sounds output.
Edit. Nor their online output.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.