CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

JASR said:
Well clearly United, as they've been mentioned, are obviously guilty, and deserve a points reduction, relegation, stripping of trophies won in that period, a transfer ban, the birch and the taking down of the scaffold.

I think that's what is required in these circumstances, if we follow the usual journalists rhetoric for City...
Click to expand...
I’m sure if we’re one of the 55 clubs the media will forget all about the other 54.
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
Yes, but not necessarily because of the merits (or lack thereof) of the PL’s arguments - not that we actually know what they are yet, albeit that we can surmise - but because they’re being browbeaten by 19 sets of bitter cnuts, and 2 gigantic red cnuts in particular, and pressurised by an army of media morons who’ve already decided our guilt to the point that I get grief off Palace and Brighton fans for “cheating” where I live, never mind the usual glut of gormless Southern rags and dippers.
Click to expand...
As the adjudication and appeals both come under the same organisation - the PL ( unlike UEFA and CAS) do we have a right of appeal to a UK Court if the decision goes against us?
We have already used the Courts to appeal within the current process which suggests we do have recourse to appeal outside of the PL?
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
So the rags are being investigated by HMRC for tax avoidance, where’s the exclusive on that?
Click to expand...

United pay virtually no tax in the UK and never have done. They are one big debt-ridden tax evasion scheme based in the Cayman Islands. Yet there have been no PL or UEFA probes and no media witchunts. And all these cases have been or will be airbrushed out of history just like their ground being invaded by thugs.

www.theguardian.com

Now Man Utd stand accused over low level of corporation tax

Club says figures for last six years do not take any deferred payment of corporation tax into account
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

www.accountancyage.com

HMRC probing Manchester United players over image rights tax dodges - Accountancy Age

HMRC is probing at least two Manchester United players over potential image rights tax dodging that allegedly occured over the 2014-2015 season
www.accountancyage.com www.accountancyage.com

www.mirror.co.uk

Man Utd and Newcastle among clubs under investigation as HMRC claws back £464m

EXCLUSIVE: Following a six-year probe into the sport HMRC has collected an eye-watering amount of money by reaching settlements on allegedly unpaid taxes
www.mirror.co.uk www.mirror.co.uk

Of course if it was me or you or Manchester City we would be prosecuted and fined.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
That it doesn't matter if ADUG provided the money to Etihad, as long as Etihad met the sponsorship contract terms and they were reasonable. So if the money goe ADUG --> Etihad --> City, he's claiming that's fine.

My view is that this would be seen as disguised equity investment and clearly contrary to FFP. Fortunately we never had to test that disagreement though.
Click to expand...

So even if it was fair value it wouldn’t be allowed because we hid it but if we didn’t hide it and it was fair value that would be ok
 
The Fail has found prehistoric etchings in the scoreboard paddock that predict the Edwards family of financial doping.
 
Did the judge say the arbitration was fair ? How can it be when it’s not external? Who did the arbitration ?
 
JGL07 said:
No it was Louis Edwards trying to destroy evidence of supplying contaminated meat to Schools.
Click to expand...
I remember as a primary school kid in mid 70’s being served a meal of
Meat, mash and a vegetable, followed by pudding.

Sometimes the veg was a plum tomato- I didn’t eat them then.
Sometimes the pudding was prunes - I didn’t eat then either

and then sometimes the meat was a slice of what was meant to be pork I presume … it was hard to tell, it also smelt and tasted ‘wrong’ - so even as a primary school kid I stopped eating that as well.

so.. some days my entire school food intake was just mash.
 
Once upon a time there was no such thing as shirt sponsoring are the naming of stadium rights. Indeed, the BBC tried it's very best to edit these things out until it became impractical to do so. And if clubs wanted to spend money on new players but without having the funds to do it this way, they would do it the old fashioned way of getting the Boards of such clubs to dip into their own pockets and buy the players the managers wanted. And if directors really care about their clubs they would continue to do this and clubs like Bury would still be with us. Is this still allowed? If Sheikh Mansour was to say [in Arabic] "Sod this, it's my money and it's my club and I'll spend as much as I like on it rather than scratching around wasting time looking for investors who want the vanity of their names on teams shirts" , would this be allowed?
 
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