PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

abu13 said:
You only have to look at Uefa and the CAS cases, we were found guilty on all counts and our name dragged through the mud, on appeal to CAS the charges were all overturned with the exception of none co-operation. It as clear as day why the none co-operation took place. But how many fans of other clubs feel we were innocent of the charges? very, very few. In most peoples opinions we "got off" due to technicalities and better lawyers. No thought of us actually being innocent of the charges we just "got off"

Fast forward to the PL charges, exactly the same, you can already hear it, better lawyers, bribes, backhanders, political pressure, technicalities. Have any of the media, opposition fans etc.. even contemplated the thought that we may actually be innocent, completely legit and above board? No.

If the hearing goes our way it will be "disgusting" and another example of our "blatent cheating"

The charges being raised was all they needed to do.
Click to expand...
That's because all want us to be guilty. Nothing else will do for them.
 
BlueAnorak said:
It would be very interesting on the Fordham thing, especially as 5 other PL clubs were fined by HMRC for creative image right solutions that actually broke UK tax regulations.
In fact United and Newcastle after paying back tax are under investigation for their tax affairs from top to bottom going back quite a way.
Pellegrini was also fined for trying to evade UK taxation - Not a problem for City though - that was his and his alone's problem.
www.uhy-uk.com

Tax investigations into UK football clubs recover £125m, more than doubling the previous year’s total of £59m

Read the latest insights from UHY Hacker Young: Tax investigations into UK football clubs recover £125m, more than doubling the previous year’s total of £59m
www.uhy-uk.com www.uhy-uk.com

In fact their are huge issues with tax avoidance/evasion in football.

New report: how Premier League Football clubs have avoided £470m of tax, and how to stop it

Tax Policy Associates today reveals that Premiership football clubs are avoiding tax on an industrial scale, by artificially structuring their payments to football agents. We estimate this has cost £470m in lost tax since 2015. In our view this is failed tax avoidance - it was never compliant with t
www.taxpolicy.org.uk www.taxpolicy.org.uk

This will become a huge issue over the next few years.
In fact, solving our problems early with UEFA may yet actually be a blessing in disguise. For worst case this ACTUALLY IS breaking the law.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in any way wrong with the club selling the image rights of (some?) players in return for a lump sum up front, and it has nothing to do with tax on the image rights themselves. That is a completely different issue, imo. The PL may not like it, and may wish to adjust for it, but there is nothing at all suspicious about it from a commercial viewpoint.
 
Gladiator007 said:
What if the Premier League has a whistleblower or a disgruntled employee who had first-hand experience with the alleged fraudulent accounting....?

Then we are totally fucked beyond repair. It would surely mean jail time for our top executives.
Click to expand...
I think that news would be bigger than just Man. City. Accounting firms would face ruin.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Don't worry about it then. Let us do that for you. ;-)

Seriously though, the Everton case, plus Chelsea's alleged offshore shenanigans, gives this a topic a new lease of life.
Click to expand...
I know how he feels though Colin.

I've been a City fan longer than most on this forum and I still am unable to get our unpredictable form out of my mind.
Match days are worst even though I look forward to them.
The relief when we win and the fatalistic ah well typical City when we don't.
I think I should get a hobby or go with family to a National Trust.

My dad told me it was character building supporting City, he didn't tell me it was as addictive as crack cocaine.

Thanks mate for putting a layman's understanding into legal talk, we need you now more than ever.
 
Dribble said:
When we're audited, we give the auditor's full access to the accounts & supply anything they request from the folio.

They don't look through every transaction, receipt, invoice & purchase order. Essentially they rely on the accuracy of what we give them to do their job.

We sign to say the info is accurate & they sign to say they're satisfied to certify our accounts according to the info supplied.

At no point have BDO said "City refused us access to A B or C" or "We had serious concerns over X Y or Z, which City failed to explain/supply, so we've made an advisory note or not certified the accounts".

What this is all about is the difference between UK Law & PL rules. UK Law trumps it every time. This is a Pandora's Box the PL may wish they never opened.

The IFR is the PL's worst nightmare coming true. If they weren't self serving bent bastards, they wouldn't so vehemently against it. \0/
Click to expand...
For the benefit of the uninitiated, I will make no apology for being picky, expressing an audit opinion on a set of accounts and certifying accounts are two different things.

Audits and audit opinions are the important things in company legislation.

Auditors are required to express an opinion on whether or not a company’s financial statements present a true and fair view of the state of affairs at the balance sheet date and of the profit for the year. This means doing whatever work they judge necessary taking into account risk of misstatement and materiality.

Auditors are not trying to check whether accounts are 100% accurate and they base their testing on samples of transactions. They will check significant or abnormal transactions.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Don't worry about it then. Let us do that for you. ;-)

Seriously though, the Everton case, plus Chelsea's alleged offshore shenanigans, gives this a topic a new lease of life.
Click to expand...
It gives it a new element to talk about, but whether this thread was locked or reached 10k pages, we won’t know anything else until the verdict is reached.

Its not a case of not worrying, it’s more a case of trying not to let it dominate your thoughts until we have something to react to.
 
halfcenturyup said:
There is nothing in any way wrong with the club selling the image rights of (some?) players in return for a lump sum up front, and it has nothing to do with tax on the image rights themselves. That is a completely different issue, imo. The PL may not like it, and may wish to adjust for it, but there is nothing at all suspicious about it from a commercial viewpoint.
Click to expand...
Most of the top clubs were selling image rights to third parties and the HMRC allowed the payments providing it didnt exceed 10% of the players remuneration , its just another pile of horseshit to be thrown at us , if we get summoned over image rights , the Premier league's discipinary commitee will be working ovetime for the next decade , Rags,Dippers,Spuds,Chavs,Goons form an orderly queue
 
Winchester said:
Oh so your family are not important
Well mine to me are, hence my op
Footie doesn’t rule my life
Click to expand...

I’m on here talking about Manchester City and this subject is very important In that context.

You have come on here and commented so you clearly aren’t devoting all your attention to your family.
 
Keeper! said:
To be fair the amount of money is irrelevant, allegedly paying off the books is not a good look and arouses suspicion.
Click to expand...
You’re right - it’s not a good look. However, I think that allegation is utter bollocks. We were throwing around far greater sums of money to sign players that were going through the books at the time so the notion we were paying Mancini’s wages off the books is fanciful IMO.

Also, as of a few months ago Mancini said he hadn’t been contacted by the Premier League about this. Surely if they want to pin that one on us then they’d actually talk to him and ask him for his observations?
 
Winchester said:
PB
I have read your stuff time and time again, you know your stuff
On here and Kotk
My point is there's nothing anyone can do until its run its course
I'm saying there are more important things to worry about
Family etc thats all
Click to expand...
By that logic we shouldn’t have any pre match threads either.
 
halfcenturyup said:
There is nothing in any way wrong with the club selling the image rights of (some?) players in return for a lump sum up front, and it has nothing to do with tax on the image rights themselves. That is a completely different issue, imo. The PL may not like it, and may wish to adjust for it, but there is nothing at all suspicious about it from a commercial viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Must confess, back then, I would have advocated selling the rights to another company.
 
Some cases are still heard even when there was only a slight chance of a party winning. For example, Bennell Victims versus MCFC. The court spent 2 weeks arguing if Bennell had been a vicarious MCFC employee (ie an employe paid off the books). This was an attempt to make City liable to pay additional damages.

In the ruling, the judge stated the Bennell victims counsel had failed to prove the case. However he also stated even if they had proved it MCFC were NOT liable because of where and when the historical offences occurred.
So why did the judge not stop the hearing on day one ?. I just don't understand the Law.
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
Don't worry about it then. Let us do that for you. ;-)

Seriously though, the Everton case, plus Chelsea's alleged offshore shenanigans, gives this a topic a new lease of life.
Click to expand...
The Chelsea one seems a bit strange in that the PL seem to be saying they hadn't noticed anything in the reporting from Chelsea and their advisors for years and years but now Chelsea have just mentioned it to them.

Makes it sound like they were oblivious to everything!
 
Dribble said:
This is more my understanding of how this process should work, which begs the question why have the PL charges preceeded the evidentiary disclosure process which is estimated to take between 2-4 years?

None of this bullshit adds up even at the most basic legal level.
Click to expand...

They have made a series of accusations - at least 100. Seem to have no evidence and are trying to press us to concede guilt whilst continuing to look for any evidence. It seems to be an utter farce, but the press are lapping it up.
 
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