kaz7
Well-Known Member
Dont believe anyone thinks it will be soon , we have as long as needed to get our defence ready , think it will be a while off yet
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Agreed. Football fans are mainly interested in their team winning. If that means another team being taken down a peg or two they will be delighted. If it wasnt for City the history clubs would have won a lot more. Pundits try to be balanced, but their emotions get the better of them. Just have to see how partisan little Gary is and how bad boy Jamie behave on tv when their beloved clubs are getting beaten by Man City. The tribunal cannot and will not be emotional. They have to objectively review the evidence and play back their thoughts to the people in the room who will no doubt be very bright individuals representing Man City and the PL. There will be no hiding place in that tribunal. City won the semi final in Switzerland . Now they need to win the final. Come on City.I have become very suspicious of people who say or do certain things and believe they are either lying or stupid when it comes to football or politics but I am sure your right about the research on lying the other thing is that the tribunal are not asking me or your about these things but some of the most powerful and wealthy people and have to call into doubt the work of key people or assume they have been conned e.g accountants auditors etc
Big Joe Corrigan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 4,706
They should start at that shithole across town.For clarity I am not implying it has anything to do with city.
No players or the club involved have been named. It could be any club that has related satellite clubs.
I was just pointing out that the hmrc are already showing a keen interest in football finances and tax schemes.
kaz7
Well-Known Member
That poster is a rag so doubt he will agree with that , too busy throwing shade at the momentThey should start at that shithole across town.
Mad Eyed Screamer
Moderator
1. Not for a few years I suspect.Sorry to be bit uneducated on this but does anybody know :-
1) When the Kangaroo court is likely to be ?
2) How the hearing went and if it went to a second hearing ?
I appreciate both parties are not keen to LEAK anything unlike Rick Parry and his cronies at UEFA but it is clearly unacceptable for our fans to have to suffer this charade for Months/Years.Surely it would be in the interest of both parties to resolve it as quickly as possible, particularly MCFC.
2. As the hearing hasn't been held, I can't tell you how it went. The 2nd hearing would be the High Court. Probably in another 2 years
Mad Eyed Screamer
Moderator
Aren't their accounts untouchable because they are registered in the Caymen Islands?They should start at that shithole across town.
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
The High Court?1. Not for a few years I suspect.
2. As the hearing hasn't been held, I can't tell you how it went. The 2nd hearing would be the High Court. Probably in another 2 years
Ghandi's Flip Flops
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 1,463
Not sure its the 'paying agents through satellite clubs' thing but wasn't it stated in utd's last accounts that they have an ongoing HMRC investigation?Hmrc are already looking into players tax avoidance schemes from my understanding. Saw a legal bulletin and allegedly over 300 players are being investigated and one premier league club for paying agent fees through satellite clubs.
Time to call the Peaky Blinders or the A TeamWhat's the 'or else' clause look like?
You’re telling me HMRC won’t be interested in a large some of money paid to a high profile manager of a premier league club in a different country under a different tax regime instead of the one this one. If it was true income tax and national insurance would have been avoidedAs I say I haven’t seen anything to suggest to me, (a Chelsea supporter who has a background in some of these matters ) to suggest that city have filed with HMRC and or Companies House accounts that understate income.
The Mancini Contracts do pose a question for the football authorities but I very much doubt that HMRC would be that interested in money paid out and accounted for under other nations tax regiemes
It’s not just city that probably have an image rights issue but that will almost be a separate debating point.
For most clubs it’s one issue but for city the problem is wider because of the issue re selling image rights off.That I suspect is something additional that HMRC will be taking a view on but not sure it’s close to fraud.
The question for me in this regard is did the other entity pay the players and account for tax etc ? If not why not?
In this area cities biggest issue for me is how they sold off rights as I am far from sure that complies with the PL rules on such matters.
Big Joe Corrigan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 4,706
Exactly.Aren't their accounts untouchable because they are registered in the Caymen Islands?
Mad Eyed Screamer
Moderator
Well there is no appeal allowed with Premier League Kangaroo courts so I'm assuming if they find us guilty, City can take the PL to the high courtThe High Court?
Bloominmarvellous
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2023
- Messages
- 63
- Team supported
- Man utd
Yes I am a utd fan but I also work in law hence my interest in this case, the hmrc investigation I mentioned and the recent Newcastle hmrc case.That poster is a rag so doubt he will agree with that , too busy throwing shade at the moment
If I was throwing shade perhaps I would have once made comment on guilt but i haven't because there is none.
You might want to look at how many premier league clubs have satellite clubs before thinking it was a dig at your lot.
SilvaisSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 1,870
Everyone knows you are completely trustworthy, I mean you joined only after the latest PL charges, all your posts are about the charges, and of course you are not implying City & it’s satellite clubs, just out of interest which other club with satellite clubs were you implying?For clarity I am not implying it has anything to do with city.
No players or the club involved have been named. It could be any club that has related satellite clubs.
I was just pointing out that the hmrc are already showing a keen interest in football finances and tax schemes.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
We seemingly stopped paying image rights via Fordham in 2018 and brought them in-house. But, as I've said before, my guess would be that we reported them to UEFA after 2015, when they discussed these with us.I am just wondering why the charges are up until 2018.
Did our accounting change since then? If there are any problems with our image rights payments, Etihad deal, other sponsor payments etc, did anything change after 2018? or if they have been potentially breaking PL rules all those years do they still break those same rules in last 5 years too each year?
Why would it not amount to fraudYou can have 100% legal books that still deceive the Premier League.
Inflating sponsorships, paying players and managers off the books, disguising owner investment...these are all things that would constitute dishonest accounting from the Premier League's point of view but not criminal fraud.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
United have admitted in their accounts being involved in discussions with HMRC. As a public company, they have to disclose any such matters. I'd also expect any other, privately owned club to do so though.Hmrc are already looking into players tax avoidance schemes from my understanding. Saw a legal bulletin and allegedly over 300 players are being investigated and one premier league club for paying agent fees through satellite clubs.
Disguising owner investment would likely be illegal.You can have 100% legal books that still deceive the Premier League.
Inflating sponsorships, paying players and managers off the books, disguising owner investment...these are all things that would constitute dishonest accounting from the Premier League's point of view but not criminal fraud.
By observing their behaviour and actions in the tribunal, the plausibility and consistency of their arguments, their acknowledgement of facts that have been evidenced in the room etc etcAnd how would you prove that someone's opinion lacked impartiality ?
If City present irrefutable evidence for a specific allegation and one of the tribunal members still decides to vote that City is guilty for that specific allegation this would indicate to me the tribunal member had an agenda and was not being impartial.
I had heard if City were unhappy with the panel/verdict that they could appeal, this would mean a new panel and hearing? Do you mean if this goes against us we can then go to the High Court if blatantly flawed?1. Not for a few years I suspect.
2. As the hearing hasn't been held, I can't tell you how it went. The 2nd hearing would be the High Court. Probably in another 2 years