PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Not if the services were provided outside the country, unless you have a world-wide income tax regime in the UK these days. You may have for all I know, I left over 40 years ago
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the taxman has got very uppity about these types of payment recently and starts from a position that, if the income is associated with UK employment or derives from UK employment, he will ask for uk tax. He wont necessarily win a challenge but his policies have got quite aggressive.
 
WRicko said:
Why is everyone having the biggest problem understanding the Mancini stuff
Click to expand...
Sorry but I think it’s your good self that isn’t seeing the issue.

It’s nothing to do with paying tax in the UAE or indeed in Italy. It’s not in the PLs to rule on tax matters nor are they making comment or charging City with any IT issues it’s quite simply was the money paid to Mancini or his company really for work in the UAE or was it a way of paying him for work at City but not paid by City.
 
KS55 said:
As I understand it, the taxman has got very uppity about these types of payment recently and starts from a position that, if the income is associated with UK employment or derives from UK employment, he will ask for uk tax. He wont necessarily win a challenge but his policies have got quite aggressive.
Click to expand...
There is a long standing double taxation agreement between the UK and Italy So he won’t be charged IT by both so if it’s accounted for in Italy I very much doubt that HMRC will get involved
The problem is the opinion of the tribunal may well not be thought to be defendable in a court of law or even at a tax commission again because the burden of proof isn’t necessarily to the same level.
Balance of probability at the PL Commission beyond reasonable doubt elsewhere
 
halfcenturyup said:
But in the case of Etihad, for example, and in your view, would it affect the true and fair view given by the signed, audited annual accounts?
Click to expand...
Probably not but the OP was not clear. As I replied, Etihad sponsorship funded originally by our owner and passed on to us might draw the attention of ffp hawks, (the hawks would lose) but is probably ok from an accounting perspective, whereas direct investment by the owner disguised in our accounts as anything else would be the crime of false accounting.
 
terraloon said:
Sorry but I think it’s your good self that isn’t seeing the issue.

It’s nothing to do with paying tax in the UAE or indeed in Italy. It’s not in the PLs to rule on tax matters nor are they making comment or charging City with any IT issues it’s quite simply was the money paid to Mancini or his company really for work in the UAE or was it a way of paying him for work at City but not paid by City.
Click to expand...
I am expecting the good sheik’s rep to give evidence of major work by Mancini for Al Jazira. “He even cut the grass for us.”
In any case Mancini’s contract with Al Jazira pre dated his appointment at City and overlapped with the introduction of ffp only in the last year. Prior to that, there would be no reason to pay him by the back door, Mansour was shelling out loads for us.
 
Last edited:
KS55 said:
Probably not but the OP was not clear. As I replied, Etihad sponsorship funded originally by our owner and passed on to us might draw the attention of ffp hawks, (the hawks would lose) but is probably ok from an accounting perspective, whereas direct investment by the owner disguised in our accounts as anything else would be the crime of false accounting.
Click to expand...

Yes, I guess it's pretty clear that showing a direct investment in the club as income would be false accounting.

But I think we should be more clear for people on here that aren't so up-to-speed that, with the fundamentals of the Etihad deal as we understand them and as they were described and accepted at CAS, there is nothing in the Etihad sponsorship that suggests false accounting or that the accounting treatment in the signed, audited annual accounts leads to them not giving a true and fair view.

No matter what the PL alleges.
 
KS55 said:
I am expecting the good sheik’s rep to give evidence of major work by Mancini for Al Jazira. “He even cut the grass for us.”
In any case Mancini’s contract with Al Jazira pre dated his appointment at City and overlapped with the introduction of ffp only in the last year. Prior to that, there would be no reason to pay him by the back door, Mansour was shelling out loads for us.
Click to expand...

Is a good answer. Also, if it was a strategy to avoid the full manager's cost being included for FFP, why wasn't the same done for Pellegrini? I suspect it was more likely for Mancini's personal tax planning.
 
norman said:
Like all blues I’m worried sick about this but trying to be objective here’s my twopennorth as a retired lawyer but not in the same league as petrusha and the other learned minds. Anyway….
I recall that City turned down a deal of something like a one year ban from the ECL and thinking at the time they must be very confident of their position to do so bearing in mind the inevitable uncertainty of any legal action, the more so the more complex the issues but were proved right to have done so.
I personally do not think the impartiality of the panel will be an issue, after all if a decision is perverse it may be capable of challenge despite what the PL rules may otherwise state and it would require people who should know better ignoring cogent evidence and putting their own reputations and credibility at stake.
Nor can I imagine City (or the owners/directors) would, having access to informed and impartial advice from their own Legal and accountancy advisers, placed themselves at risk of criminal charges. If they have then they would deserve all they get.
Rather it may be that the Premier league criteria are in some way different from the UEFA criteria such that compliance with UEFA rules, which CAS confirmed was the case, does not necessarily mean that we would not be in breach of PL rules. If that is so then it makes something of a mockery of the whole thing anyway.
In my opinion unless there is some technical breach of PL rules because of such difference, or there is additional evidence of which CAS were not aware, then in view of City’s confidence it seems likely that, apart from non cooperation, we should be ok. As to non cooperation our Counsel will no doubt have powerful reasons to put forward on City’s behalf (eg fishing expedition) for not producing whatever documents are in question.
Also it beggars belief that the PL charges give the appearance of having been prepared by the office junior (no disrespect to that job) without at least checking that the rules we are accused of breaching related to the correct year! But nevertheless that’s what they did.
The huge investment by City in the north stand etc. is not consistent with an organisation knowing it is doomed to massive penalties eg. relegation 2 or 3 years down the line.
An earlier poster (Tolmies hairdo if memory serves) suggests a deal may have been offered in the current proceedings. If it has, and City turned it down, then it is equivalent to their stance in the UEFA fiasco which was absolutely the right call.
Nor can I accept readily that these proceedings have been brought purely on the basis of a vendetta by the red tops. They must, for goodness sake, have taken advice before issuing the proceedings or if they haven’t, which as I say I think is highly unlikely, then more fool them. They may well have been advised their chances were iffy, but maybe, like City, they want the whole stinking mess sorted once and for all whatever the outcome.
I believe City are a highly competent outfit who will have taken the best possible advice, and are vigorously defending the allegations on the basis of that advice.
As in tax law, avoidance may be morally questionable, but not illegal, and by the same token a legitimate workaround to minimise the impact on their business of unfair PL rules could be acceptable whereas fraudulently cooking the books would not be.
The tragedy of all this for us fans is that it takes the shine off a breathtaking, groundbreaking past 15 years or so for which the club has received fuck all credit when they should have been praised for the transformation of the way the game is played and the positive impact worldwide on the Premier League “product.
In summary I think (hope) there are grounds for optimism, but it still doesn’t rid me of the nagging worry of why???
Click to expand...
The redshirts do not want this cleared up. There is ample evidence that they have been shit stirring: letters, round robins, hacking, calling Soriano “the terrorist” etc etc. It serves their purpose to destabilise City.
Oh, and another thing: do you really believe xenophobia plays no part in this?
 
KS55 said:
The redshirts do not want this cleared up. There is ample evidence that they have been shit stirring: letters, round robins, hacking, calling Soriano “the terrorist” etc etc. It serves their purpose to destabilise City.
Oh, and another thing: do you really believe xenophobia plays no part in this?
Click to expand...
I honestly don’t know but naively perhaps I prefer not to think that. It’s more likely that their cosy cash cow has been threatened
 
halfcenturyup said:
Why should he? Just because you and some others can't get your head around the concept of someone sharing something they heard from what they consider a reliable source because they thought it might be of interest?
Click to expand...
I believe Dodge believes what he was told but I don't believe it and I won't believe it until someone for once actually comes up with the smallest, slightest bit of actual proof.

We have 1700 pages speculating that the PL have no actual proof of the charges they have brought against us but we are supposed to believe there is evidence that will destroy the PL based on 'my mate said' ?
 
Bandofblues said:
I believe Dodge believes what he was told but I don't believe it and I won't believe it until someone for once actually comes up with the smallest, slightest bit of actual proof.

We have 1700 pages speculating that the PL have no actual proof of the charges they have brought against us but we are supposed to believe there is evidence that will destroy the PL based on 'my mate said' ?
Click to expand...
The definition of a forum is a platform where ideas and views on an issue can be exchanged. 1700 pages of facts would be impossible, even in the proceedings.
 
terraloon said:
Hey chaps.

As you can guess from my input this issue is one I find fascinating and I hope that my input is viewed as constructive because that’s my intention
As it’s obvious I am not a City supporter I am desperately trying not to be too judgmental but if I stray too far from just discussing process please point it out
Click to expand...
You're not a City supporter but you've posted 234 messages on Bluemoon ?. Are you sufficiently fascinated by this issue to have read the CAS settlement document, probably not. The Chairman and CEO of Ethihad Airways testified under oath (in a Swiss court ie CAS) that he authorised the sponsorship of MCFC by Ethihad Airways. So the notion of disguised equity seems to be based on the fact the owners of MCFC and Ethihad Airways were from the same country. So was the sponsorship of MUFC (owned by Americans) by General Motor's also American disguised equity funding ?. Perhaps you might like to clarify ?
 
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