Thank you so much..I guess from your and other comments, it is not as bad as it appears..no doubt we will get a token fine..just wish to say your piece on the other thread was very informative and summed the case up concisely.:)
1. Some is publicly available, some is my own analysis. Eg the breakdown of the charges is how I group the charges in my own mind. There are other ways of grouping the charges - issue by issue, year by year, but the three themes I have chosen seem to me the most logical breakdown. Others may have very valid reasons for disagreeing.
Very little however of what I say has not been said already in this thread, often by multiple posters all saying the same thing.
2. I think we can assume (a) that the SFO have heard of the fact that the PL has charged us, and (b) if the SFO had swooped in to confiscate City's laptops we'd have heard about it. I suppose you can draw your own conclusions from that.
3. What the PL is alleging, in essence, is that the contract between Al Jazira and RM was a sham, invented to cover additional remuneration actually paid to RM by MCFC. I don't see why City would have paid him in that way. There is a lot of logic in saying to a friendly club in AD 'would you mind paying him a lot of money for a few days work' so he doesn't take a job somewhere else as we moved towards the end of the Hughes era. But that doesn't make that contract a sham. Things can be artificial without being a sham. I don't see any reason why we would have disguised RM's income beyond that.
More importantly, I don't see how you can say 'that contract between RM and AJ was a sham' without hearing from RM and AJ and scrutinising the accounts of both. I agree RM's input would be extremely important in that respect. And like you, I have never heard RM say 'Oh no, I never went to Al Jazirah, that was just a smokescreen to hide how much money I was being paid by City.' And if he'd ever said that, I think it would have leaked.
You're forgetting that every transaction involved will have been audited at some point or other by approved external auditors. As much as the media will have you think, we aren't opperated like some shady cash only backstreet shopWould it not look better on our part if hmrc had a look through our books and said everything was tickety boo? Surely it would show this whole shit show up for the witch hunt it clearly is
Arsenal 'in multi-million tax dodge'
Tom Whitehead
Sunday 18 July 2004 00:00 BST
Comments
Sign up to Miguel’s Delaney’s free weekly newsletter
I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy notice
The high-profile divorce of Arsenal star Ray Parlour has exposed a multi-million-pound tax dodge at the country's top football club, it was reported last night.
Bonuses paid to players and the manager, amounting to millions each season, are paid in to offshore trusts and secretive front companies to avoid tax, according to The Sunday Times.
The legal, but widely condemned, tactic only emerged when midfielder Parlour had to disclose all his earnings and bonuses during his divorce settlement to ex-wife Karen at the Court of Appeal earlier this month.
Top names at Arsenal are said to sign two contracts, one for their annual basic wage, which is taxed at the normal top rate of 40 per cent, and a second that pays an array of performance-related bonuses, the newspaper said. Bonuses, including rewards for success in the Premiership, FA Cup, European championships and other competitions, can account for up to half of total pay packets.
They are paid via two front companies in to trusts, which can result in no tax or as little as 1 per cent being paid. In one season alone, £7.6m of the club's wage bill is estimated to have been channelled through one of the trusts, with nearly 30 players having to pay a total of just £76,000 tax, the newspaper investigation said. British stars such as Parlour, Ashley Cole and former goalkeeper David Seaman are said to have cut their tax to 25 per cent.
The club has also set up what is known as an employee benefit trust, through which bonuses are "loaned" to players but, in reality, are never paid back. A spokesman for the club told the paper employee contracts were strictly confidential. (PA)
More aboutCourt Of AppealDavid SeamanDivorce And SeparationJusticeMarriageNewspapers And MagazinesTaxUEFA Champions LeagueSunday Times
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments
Would it not look better on our part if hmrc had a look through our books and said everything was tickety boo? Surely it would show this whole shit show up for the witch hunt it clearly is
It was in the independent. It was something I found just browsing a while ago. It's a wonder delooney never mentions it.from 04 right?
You have just summarised perfectly the absolute farce that these 'charges' are, and how corrupt the UK media are to have people believing we are anything other than innocent.This is the same argument that Carragher has said.
Our evidence is our published accounts.
We don't have to do anything else as we're innocent until proven otherwise.
It's for the PL and their barristers to show what evidence they have they says our accounts are false.
Government have written to Masters to publish the minutes of how they arrived at the Everton sanctions. For the legally educated who kindly keep us informed, does this have any potential relevance for us ?Thank you so much..I guess from your and other comments, it is not as bad as it appears..no doubt we will get a token fine..just wish to say your piece on the other thread was very informative and summed the case up concisely.
I suspect the longer this goes on , the weaker the PL case, as the Everton NF situation is that much clearer.
They both admitted 'guilt'Thank you so much..I guess from your and other comments, it is not as bad as it appears..no doubt we will get a token fine..just wish to say your piece on the other thread was very informative and summed the case up concisely.
I suspect the longer this goes on , the weaker the PL case, as the Everton NF situation is that much clearer.
Now we know why Dein kept quiet on the Piers Morgan charade about us.Keep the skeletons coming!Arsenal in dock over £1m 'secret payment'
Nick Harris
Friday 02 June 2006 00:00 BST
Comments
Sign up to Miguel’s Delaney’s free weekly newsletter
Sepp Blatter, the president of Fifa, last night told Arsenal to disclose the full details of their financial relationship with the Belgian club Beveren to ascertain whether they have broken any regulations over multiple club ownership or have been guilty of a conflict of interests. The head of football's world governing body intervened after BBC's Newsnight programme revealed that a Belgian police investigation had concluded that Arsenal made secret payments of £1m to Beveren.
Arsenal issued a statement last night, saying they had lent the money in 2001 to a third party who wanted to secure Beveren's future, and denied owning Beveren, directly or indirectly, at any stage. Whether their explanation will be good enough for Fifa remains to be seen.
The payments were made in 2001 in the form of interest-free loans to Raoul de Waele, a business associate of Arsenal's vice-chairman, David Dein. Documents obtained by Newsnight show the money was used to set up a company called Goal, which would take control of Beveren. This happened. The documents show that the loan and other money advanced by Arsenal would be repaid out of Goal's share of transfer profits from selling imported Ivorians and other players. It is not clear when, or how much, money Arsenal received.
In practice, the tie-up gave Arsenal an effective monopoly over the futures of Beveren's many Ivorian players. According to Newsnight, Arsenal funded the Beveren buyout so that Jean Marc Guillou, an old friend of Arsène Wenger, could use it as a staging post to import talented Ivorian players into Europe more easily. Guillou had formerly been the head of the ASEC academy in the Ivory Coast, which produced players including Kolo Touré.
Arsenal bought Touré directly from ASEC in 2002 in a deal that turned sour for ASEC when Guillou left after a dispute with a business partner. Guillou did not have the funds to buy Beveren himself.
Instead the De Waele-controlled Goal, funded by Arsenal's money, took legal control. A director at Beveren told Newsnight that in return for £1m, De Waele was given 50 per cent control of Beveren and Guillou was given another 30 per cent.
Promoted stories
9 In 10 Android Owners Didn't Know How To Block Ads
EXPERTS ON SECURITY
by TaboolaSponsored Links
Christian du Four, the investigating magistrate in the Flemish town of Dendermonde, who began his probe into Beveren under the initial, mistaken, belief that the secretive £1m funding may have been linked to money-laundering, described De Waele as Arsenal's "straw man" on the Beveren board.
If Arsenal did have any formal ownership of Beveren, the conflict of interests would be clear, not least in their transfer dealings. Arsenal bought Emmanuel Eboué from Beveren in January last year.
Arsenal said in a statement last night: "We do not normally make public our agreements with third parties. However, we can confirm we have had a technical relationship with Beveren since 2001.
"This relationship has a number of benefits to both clubs such as providing a platform to share coaching methods and techniques as well as facilitating the option of players being loaned between the clubs.
"During the course of the relationship, Arsenal players David Grondin, Liam Chilvers, John Halls and Graham Stack all spent successful loan periods at Beveren as did Emmanuel Eboué, who played in a number of trial matches with Arsenal whilst contracted to Beveren. Such was the latter player's success, Arsenal subsequently signed Eboué on a permanent basis.
"In addition, we confirm that we have never owned, directly or indirectly, any shares in Beveren or had any power whatsoever to influence its management or administration.
"We did in 2001 provide funds of €1,570,703 (£1.075m) by way of loan to a member of a consortium who used the money to assist in stabilising the finances of Beveren.
"At no time has anyone at Arsenal been contacted by any regulatory or investigatory body with respect to our relationship with Beveren. Arsenal have acted properly throughout, in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations," the club stated.
In a further revelation that will cause embarrassment, if not lead to any formal investigation, Newsnight also obtained documentary evidence that Wenger invested £30,000 of his own money in ASEC between 1997 and 1999 when Guillou was still in charge.
According to one document, it was anticipated that Wenger could expect to make £100,000 from his share of player sales by ASEC.
This raises a clear conflict of interest issue because Arsenal subsequently bought Touré directly from ASEC. But it is understood Arsenal were happy with Wenger investing, and Wenger has since said privately that the money was a donation, not an investment. There is no evidence Wenger was paid any of his money back.
More aboutMotor SportUS SenateDemocrats
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments
I found this as well
We don’t know who’s going to be on the panel but I’m pretty sure there’ll be at least one member who knows a hell of a lot more about finance than almost anyone on here. If they’re taking this at all seriouslyYou have just summarised perfectly the absolute farce that these 'charges' are, and how corrupt the UK media are to have people believing we are anything other than innocent.
All of the appropriate AND QUALIFIED auditors and government agencies have signed off on everything we have done. Yet a mickey mouse outfit like this PL panel, who know less about finance than many on here, have us as guilty with 90% of the UK population, and somehow we apparently need to try and prove we are innocent all over again
And if it's the same evidence as UEFA they'll fall flat on their fanny.This is the same argument that Carragher has said.
Our evidence is our published accounts.
We don't have to do anything else as we're innocent until proven otherwise.
It's for the PL and their barristers to show what evidence they have they says our accounts are false.
I have a question. If the PL do have evidence, are they not obligated to share those with us?
Maybe another stupid question but can’t we just show them what we have and then it won’t have to go to the courts?Of course they must do/have done. It would be pretty hard to rebut if the club don't know what they're having to explain/disprove.
The point is, and it has been laboured many times. No matter who is on the panel, it's still a football industry based panel attempting to get involved in SERIOUS financial and legal matters it has no place being involved in. If they think we have commited fraud (although they're too scared to mention the F word), then it should be they who call in the relevant authorises and law enforcement agencies. The fact they haven't speaks volumes.We don’t know who’s going to be on the panel but I’m pretty sure there’ll be at least one member who knows a hell of a lot more about finance than almost anyone on here. If they’re taking this at all seriously
It's not like we're sat on some magical gotcha piece of evidence and are not giving it them out of spite. All we are doing is saying, we've already submitted everything they could possibly want to see to the relevant authories, as such we aren't giving them anything more, nor allowing them to root through our entire internal email system for more ammunition.Maybe another stupid question but can’t we just show them what we have and then it won’t have to go to the courts?
Maybe another stupid question but can’t we just show them what we have and then it won’t have to go to the courts?