PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

You mis understand.

HMRC are investigating football clubs all the time. The image rights issue is being looked at as I type. There Is a process that HMRC follow in such matters and that’s a country mile away from going to the courts.
Chelsea and I suspect most clubs haven’t understated the payments , far from it, it’s where the payment ended up.

Don't want to derail the thread, so my last post on this. But surely the issue is that where the payments ended up led to less tax being paid in the UK, which is why it was settled with tens of millions out of court? And if it was done deliberately to avoid paying tax in the UK when the regulations are clear, surely that is then tax evasion, which is a criminal activity. Whether HMRC decide to prosecute or not, or to settle, is irrelevant? Or are you saying, to paraphrase Nixon, it's not illegal when Chelsea settle out of court?

Anyway. It doesn't matter. Not really important in the wider context.

Edit: Chelsea with a background in football administration. Are you Simon Jordan?

 

[Centurions]

Indeed, as is the idea that City intend to ‘finally clear their name’……

If an immaterial punishment were offered in exchange for a guilty finding on all charges, City would snap your cock off for it.

If you really believe that then you've not been paying attention to this thread.

 

[Centurions]

Don't want to derail the thread, so my last post on this. But surely the issue is that where the payments ended up led to less tax being paid in the UK, which is why it was settled with tens of millions out of court? And if it was done deliberately to avoid paying tax in the UK when the regulations are clear, surely that is then tax evasion, which is a criminal activity. Whether HMRC decide to prosecute or not, or to settle, is irrelevant? Or are you saying, to paraphrase Nixon, it's not illegal when Chelsea settle out of court?

Anyway. It doesn't matter. Not really important in the wider context.

Edit: Chelsea with a background in football administration. Are you Simon Jordan?

I think it's more to do with "creative accounting" where the tax lawyers job is to minimise the payments made legally whilst pushing the boundaries. HMRC obviously disagreed on their interpretation of the regulations and "invited" them to pay up and stop doing whatever it was.

Were Chelsea punished by the PL/FA for this?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think it's more to do with "creative accounting" where the tax lawyers job is to minimise the payments made legally whilst pushing the boundaries. HMRC obviously disagreed on their interpretation of the regulations and "invited" them to pay up and stop doing whatever it was.

Were Chelsea punished by the PL/FA for this?

You know the answer to that.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don't suppose anyone has a searchable link for the CAS decision? I've searched online but can't find any free software to convert it to plain text.

Throw the pdf in here:

pdf2go.com/pdf-to-text

 

[Centurions]

Throw the pdf in here:

pdf2go.com/pdf-to-text

Don't you need the paid for version for that? Does it work well if I do buy it?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Don't you need the paid for version for that? Does it work well if I do buy it?

I just did it and it seemed to work. I can email it to you if you DM me.

 

[WRicko]

Individual boot deals with say Nike are separate in that they are between the players and the sponsor and have an agreed value.

Image rights are in effect an agreement between the club who agree to pay a sum ( it used to be a set % but it’s now a quantified and independently validated number on a player by player basis) of a player’s overall pay in effect by way of compensation allowing the club to use the players image for instance in club commercial activities.

The principal of these payments are completely legit .

HMRC wanted to stop them in the day ( or Inland Revenue as it was then )but the lost a trial case against Arsenal and certain players but football being football the clubs, the player, the agents pushed it too far and the % of players wages that clubs were paying into companies was stupid some times 90% hence why The FA became involved and they and HMRC agreed a framework which remains in place to this day but….

When a player signs a contract all the financial details have to be listed on the contract and that is lodged with the PL and the FA and that includes the image rights payment

The rules in this country are clear that all of player’s remuneration per the contract have to be be made by the club.They can not be made by any other entity

It gets even more complex and something that’s a live topic in that HMRC are actively looking at payments in respect of image rights.They, HMRC , have no issue if they are paid in line with the terms of that Arsenal ruling because that tribunal gave the green light because these payments were paid into UK based companies who in turn will pay CT , if appropriate VAT , etc

The problem now is that if the payment goes to an off shore company, which many players have set up then it’s deemed by HMRC to be tax evasion. Most if not all PL and indeed Championship clubs are or were under investigation. My club , Chelsea, it seems have settled with HMRC the issue was disclosed during Bohleys due diligence and a vast sum ( tens of millions) was diverted from the sale proceeds to clear this matter up.

I don’t doubt what you say but seems odd that they cannot set up oversea entities given that they are mostly foreign and their image is being used and paid for by foreign entities

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don’t doubt what you say but seems odd that they cannot set up oversea entities given that they are mostly foreign and their image is being used and paid for by foreign entities

I imagine it can be paid anywhere but it has to be declared in the UK as it was earned in the UK?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don’t doubt what you say but seems odd that they cannot set up oversea entities given that they are mostly foreign and their image is being used and paid for by foreign entities

I imagine it can be paid anywhere but it has to be declared in the UK as it was earned in the UK?

Edit: So good I posted it twice :)

 

[paska]

Depends which lens you choose to look through. I have no idea what level of integrity the panel will have nor does anyone else on this forum. We can only guess. However, it is a known fact that when someone looks someone in the eye, which the tribunal will have to do to Man City and our representatives, human beings are more likely to be honest. Plus, the tribunal members will have personal reputations to maintain.

The impartiality agreement if breached by a tribunal member would no doubt have legal ramifications for that individual if proven. Do you want to be sued by Man City?

In this world we live in, people look each other dead in the eyes and lie all the time. Looking someone in the eyes shouldn’t be taken as proof of impartiality, especially in the murky worlds of politics and sports, which this issue unfortunately spans both

Why would I be sued by the club for defending it’s own position?

 

[WRicko]

I was thinking more of our Chelsea friend who said they settled an image rights issue out of court. It just seemed to me he was saying Chelsea had been involved with activity that amounted to a criminal offence over a number of years in a way that impacted the annual accounts and presumably the FFP reporting too. Sound familiar?

This is interesting stuff. With our image rights issue I think what we are accused of is selling them on to a third party (I don’t think it was a CFG company although at one point and possibly now it is )at inflated figures to book a profit when needed I think people on here said we still ha: to pay the players the image rights fee not the new party doing it for us. There would surely be a tax change for this was the third party UK based. We increased profit paid more tax. Helped pass FFP

Chelsea on the other hand paying players more than allowed through image rights instead of salary. Would affect tax hence the settlement but not really impact FFP though reducing tax would help with costs and therefore FFP won’t have made a difference they had got through the door earlier and had a good business selling players though weather it was as legit as it looks who knows what clubs where in theory getting paid through back channels by Abramovich think that’s been alleged and some of the deals where inflated. Anyway where is there FFP investigation into Image rights ?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

SU was great, and weirdly enough I've been listening to the Small Faces a lot recently.

So all or nothing then?

Very apt for this thread ;)

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I very very much doubt that any sort of plea bargaining has taken place that’s just not how it works.

Had City in effect made a voluntary disclosure saying something like ” We have uncovered all these issues . Sorry “ then it would or could have been dealt with behind closed doors but that’s not what has happened.The PL as far as I can see have been completely open about an investigation taking place the court ruling was more about the reason for and outcome of arbitration which they and City wanted to keep out of the public domain

I think you are being over dramatic when you talk about jail time simply because despite from a PL rule book compliance standpoint I can’t see that any of the charges are suggesting that City have broken any Laws.

I'm not being dramatic, a bad outcome simply starts the pile on.

Should City have been found guilty of committing financial fraud, it is only a matter of when HMRC and the Fraud Squad become involved.

These charges are accusing of exactly that. Our owner, executive board, sponsors and manager, all being complicit in it.

The PL handbook just opens the door. It's a very serious collection of allegations once someone tugs on the first string.

 

[terraloon]

Don't want to derail the thread, so my last post on this. But surely the issue is that where the payments ended up led to less tax being paid in the UK, which is why it was settled with tens of millions out of court? And if it was done deliberately to avoid paying tax in the UK when the regulations are clear, surely that is then tax evasion, which is a criminal activity. Whether HMRC decide to prosecute or not, or to settle, is irrelevant? Or are you saying, to paraphrase Nixon, it's not illegal when Chelsea settle out of court?

Anyway. It doesn't matter. Not really important in the wider context.

Edit: Chelsea with a background in football administration. Are you Simon Jordan?

As with most things that push the boundaries when you get close to the edge you tend to get two takes on the matter.

HMRC will have probably taken a view that in the original ruling all those years ago that the tribunal ruled that it was ok to pay to UK registered companies because they would be paying CT, VAT etc whereas no doubt accountants working for “ the other side “ namely the clubs and players will have taken the view that the ruling didn’t say that it just ruled that it was ok to pay to a company be it UK registered or not

As for me being Simon Jordan, that made me smile. My experience in football administration wasn’t anywhere near the level of the PL but you would be staggered as to how complex tier 5/6 could be

HMRC will have looked at the records and possibly said to a club something along the lines of “happy with players a)arrangements , players b) arrangements but player c )is having his image rights paid off shore so we believe it’s not ok because no tax is making its way to the UK tax authorities so we believe it should have gone through pay roll.

Then you can get to a position where very much two sides quite simply don’t agree so it’s going to have to be ruled on.

In my day one route for HMRC to get a ruling was was to issue what was called a determination under the IT Employment Regulations . What that means is they (HMRC) work out the amount due according to their view and issue an assessment. The club can appeal against the assessment and ultimately the commissioner or a tribunal will look at the arguments and rule on it.

There are other approaches but this sort of issue really isn’t an FFP matter or indeed a matter of a criminal prosecution

 

[CC1]

You don't think City have already been offered that plea bargain?

We have accused them of grand scale phishing, which is why we continue to assert the narrative "clear and obvious"

We brokered a pinch with Platini and Uefa, because we didn't want to harm the business at that time.

These Premier League accusations/charges threaten the very existence of the Club and are so much more serious, possibly threaten jail time for some individuals.

We have spent four years playing legal footsie when all we had to do was take another pinch?

The Premier League wanted to keep this all in-house and yet we preferred to have our day before an independent panel.

That should tell us this isn't a zero sum game, the Club want to clear our name once and for all.

I have to trust you don't gamble a £4bn asset on the premise we bet it all on black.

So are you saying/hoping the club are sure enough of the situation to confidently fight the accusations?

 

[halfcenturyup]

As with most things that push the boundaries when you get close to the edge you tend to get two takes on the matter.

HMRC will have probably taken a view that in the original ruling all those years ago that the tribunal ruled that it was ok to pay to UK registered companies because they would be paying CT, VAT etc whereas no doubt accountants working for “ the other side “ namely the clubs and players will have taken the view that the ruling didn’t say that it just ruled that it was ok to pay to a company be it UK registered or not

As for me being Simon Jordan, that made me smile. My experience in football administration wasn’t anywhere near the level of the PL but you would be staggered as to how complex tier 5/6 could be

HMRC will have looked at the records and possibly said to a club something along the lines of “happy with players a arrangements , players b arrangements but player c is having his image rights paid off shore so we believe it’s ok so it should have gone through pay roll.

Then you can get to a position where very much two sides quite simply don’t agree so it’s going to have to be ruled on.

In my day one route for HMRC to get a ruling was was to issue what was called a determination under the IT Employment Regulations . What that means is they (HMRC) work out the amount due according to their view and issue an assessment. The club can appeal against the assessment and ultimately the commissioner or a tribunal will look at the arguments and rule on it.

There are other approaches but this sort of issue really isn’t an FFP matter or indeed a matter of a criminal prosecution

Fairy nuff.

 

[terraloon]

I'm not being dramatic, a bad outcome simply starts the pile on.

Should City have committed financial fraud, it is only a matter of when HMRC and the Fraud Squad become involved.

These charges are accusing of exactly that. Our owner, executive board and manager, being complicit in it.

The PL handbook just opens the door. It's a very serious collection of allegations.

I am not aware that there has been any accusation or evidence of financial fraud. The PL are not in a position to make any such suggestion nor do I see that any of the charges relate to anything other than administrative charges against footballs set of rules.

No sponsorship has or shall I say has said to be understated so the appropriate numbers appear in Cities book . The issue for football is where that money came from
Manicis wages as per the contract went through the books. The question isn’t did city pay money that wasn’t paid through the books which would be one thing it’s was ( another contract elsewhere which again will have been accounted for ) really in respect of his work at Man City.
The image rights thing again isn’t was the money paid it was how it was paid.
The not assisting thing isn’t anything to do with fraud it’s subjective against football rules.
As for the issues around FFP and the profit and sustainability aren’t filed account issues it’s to do with the numbers supplied to UEFA and the FA/PL

 

[Bluefen]

I'm not being dramatic, a bad outcome simply starts the pile on.

Should City have been found guilty of committing financial fraud, it is only a matter of when HMRC and the Fraud Squad become involved.

These charges are accusing of exactly that. Our owner, executive board, sponsors and manager, all being complicit in it.

The PL handbook just opens the door. It's a very serious collection of allegations once someone tugs on the first string.

Surely if we have over-inflated our revenues then we would have overpaid tax so HMRC have had their fair share

 

[SilverFox2]

tax avoidance is ok and completely different to tax evasion

I thought the PL claim was about money in the plus column.
Seems we won't be getting a tax rebate though if we lose the case.