The new PL rules could be interpreted as saying a common country of origin of both owner and sponsor automatically raises the question of “associated parties”. Note that the PL have introduced this new concept as it is clear that our sponsorship by AbuDhabi companies are not related as defined by IAS24. Stevan’s view was that these rules were aimed squarely at us, noting the inclusion of group membership as another stick to beat us with.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Surely Tax Treaties between countries sort out which of them taxes the global income of a person.?
In other words it is possible that a person can earn most of their income in UK but be taxed on the whole of that income in another country.
Tax treaties
Find out information on the UK's tax treaties, related taxation documents and multilateral agreements.www.gov.uk
I don’t believe any of this happened but looking at the allegations I don’t know or follow I am afraid.
If Mancini was paid by a club in the UAE for work that was actually for Man City I would assume he would have paid tax in the UAE not here that’s where it came from after all and it would be odd to volunteer to pay more tax pay tax in a country where the money did not come from. What would the implications be of paying tax in the UK where it was actually earned but having received it from / in the UAE would he have to pay it in both. Are any check carried out by other bodies in football etc ? Would they say hold on ur City contract says ur paid x but you have paid more tax as if your paid y
Not a useful point but coming on to this thread is deflating.
Not through what is said by anyone but us having to go through this tiresome witch-hunt.
You could say well don’t look at the thread but it’s one of the very few media sources I trust (though some theories seem a bit far fetched). And we can’t bury our heads in the sand over something so important.
So I visit twice a day.
Not through what is said by anyone but us having to go through this tiresome witch-hunt.
You could say well don’t look at the thread but it’s one of the very few media sources I trust (though some theories seem a bit far fetched). And we can’t bury our heads in the sand over something so important.
So I visit twice a day.
The point I was trying to make is
Was it because of FFP City Group paid Mancini in the way they did, outsourced IR or because they did the FFP charges followed?
Why I make the point is the MancinI money for instance really was insignificant in the overall scheme of things
You are talking about what happens if the charges are proven around unpaid personal taxes then being disclosed . At this time that really isn’t an issue but even if the charges are proven I really can’t see that there are any extra tax implications save image rights.
HMRC we’re already all over image rights issue within the industry and yes the way in which City dealt with them for the period in question complicates matters but their structure isn’t or wasn’t illegal at worse it will be viewed as contrary to PL rules.
Almost certainly going forward City will or have had to agree a settlement with HMRC but that would be the case even if these charges hadn’t been laid
Again I really can’t see that Mancini’s dual contracts were contrary to UK taxation rules and I would be staggered if his accountants or the City group haven’t declared the income meaning it will have already been taxed be it in the UK, in the UAE or most likely in Italy.
edit. the fact there is a contract between Mancinis company and the UAE club is fact. Was it a way of disguising income that will be a subjective call by the tribunal using a lower burden of proof than will be required if the UK tax authorities decide to get involved but my view was and still is HMRC will steer well clear of this if the money has been declared elsewhere
You then come on to the sponsorship that was neither understated or indeed did it come from illegal sources .
That isn't what is being said.
Unless I have missed something I am pretty sure that all the disputed payments can be tracked back to the likes of Ethiad. The claim is that the not all of it originated from the sponsors. I am not sure what if any tax implications there are or could be.
Then finally you are into the failure to engage with the investigation no tax implications there for me.
Last edited:
Centurions
Well-Known Member
It's looking more likely to be resolved sooner rather than later at this moment, although that may depend on the panels decision of course. Hopefully we can all rest easy in a few weeks or months.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Pretty much spot on I think excepting that the Etihad money did originate with the AD government but then it is the state airline. I think that was covered by the open skies investigation in the States.
As I have pointed out many times I detest the way in which FFP was finally implemented. It should have been all about debt If wealthy people want to put money into football that’s fine by me but alas thats not what the PL and UEFA eventually went with.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
And what if SM and Khaldoon both say we're innocent so we're fighting it tooth and nail? Which is what Khaldoon has basically stated already.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
I would suggest they actually have more knowledge of the subject than many on here, I'm not sure which bit you think is wumming but I've not seen anything.
If posts were restricted to only people who knew what they were talking about on here then we'd have only around 5 pages rather than 1,700 plus.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
For example I live in Spain for more than 6 months of each Spanish fiscal year so the Treaty makes me a Spanish Taxpayer so they tax me accordingly for all earnings in the UK.
HMRC instruct my pension people etc to pay me gross (ie my code becomes NT)
Many other countries have a similar agreement if bound by the Treaty as per Gov Treaty Guide in my last post.
manimanc
Well-Known Member
I might have missed you saying it but who do you support again?
Genuine question by the way.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Chelsea I think.
SilvaisSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 1,870
I respect you as a poster on here and agree with your posts usually, but in this case he is a clear know fùck all IMO and is definitely a WUM, the fact he is a fan of Chelsea and appearing to lecture about finance of any kind is also fucked up.
He repeats the same Mancini & image rights issues in nearly every post, even though both have been repeatedly addressed, and I fail to see what point he is making with these posts by constantly repeating them, apart from as I said, being a WUM.
Anyhow, will agree to differ on our opinions of his intent on being on here.
Just to note, the prick can’t even spell lose (loose), and bizarrely refers to City’s as Cities when talking about City, and yet some want to declare the fûckwit a financial genius (not saying you do).
FantasyIreland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 64,698
No shit sherlock......of course that's what they fucking went with...... because FFP was invented,by those who had most to lose,for no other reason than to target us.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if I've mixed them up with another poster now :(
Is it them that claim to have previous financial experience with a lower league or non league club?
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,936
Yep. And in HMRC, and on fiscal issues around overseas income and image rights. Seems relevant to me.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Cheers, good to know I've not totally lost the plot :)
Trying to stay out of these re-runs of multiple arguments but HMRC and tax on Mancini is a complete red herring. Firstly, it’s way too long ago for HMRC to go after. Second, it’s immaterial. Thirdly, if the serious charges are proved, all hell breaks loose far beyond HMRC but in any event, post restatement, City would have much *bigger* tax losses to carry forward - they will, theoretically, owe less tax not more. Either way, Mancini’s consultancy is a total side show.
SilvaisSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 1,870
Yes, I believe he stated fifth or sixth tier, which is fair enough (if true), as would give the person some understanding of football finances, though obviously not on the scale of City.
I have no problem with whoever posting their opinion and certainly respect those who clearly have a grasp of the actual issues with the many charges and the associated consequences. I personally never thought being a City fan would involve having to constantly read up on such matters (maybe one of the experts on here could set up an online course for us to brush up our football finance skills, haha), and again have no problem with those offering different viewpoints which spell out the negatives and not just the positives, IMO the poster offers nothing on such issues apart from his personal hopes and wishes that City fail.
It really is mate. For starters, your assumption that everyone attending & giving evidence are likely to all have English as their first language is completely incorrect
Khaldoon as Chairman may give evidence & I’m pretty certain he’ll be attending
Ferran Soriano as CEO may give evidence & again, pretty certain he’ll be attending too
Neither speak English as their first language, so how can it possibly be relevant that everyone attending & giving evidence will have English as their first language, when that’s not even true?
Maybe an Etihad rep, or Eiselt rep, or Mancini will give evidence. Will they all have English as a first language? Nope
No idea what your point about English & Swiss law is, unless you’re alluding to the fact that CAS is based in Switzerland & if it were based in the UK, we wouldn’t have won?
However, guessing you have no idea that the arbitrators & clerk for the CAS case were from Portugal, France, Switzerland & Holland? Or that UEFA used barristers from UK AND Switzerland? Or that English, French & Spanish are the 3 languages used at any CAS case?
CAS isn’t a kangaroo court mate, so what difference do you envisage this panel of 3 of English speakers, with at least one of the panel being a UK trained lawyer, will make?
Edit: Forgot the most important part: No evidence was the verdict at CAS for all charges brought within time & it doesn’t matter what language you speak, or what country you studied law in, no evidence means no evidence
You write well mate, but you know the square root of fuck all on this subject ya dirty cockerney twat ;)
Last edited: