PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Dribble said:
View attachment 113714

Premier League clubs have reportedly agreed in principle to adopt new rules to control costs.

A number of alternative options, such as a luxury tax and salary cap, have been discussed by fans and pundits but the league appears ready to press ahead with a squad-cost ratio system.

This will allow clubs to spend up to 85 per cent of their revenue on transfers, wages and agent fees. A similar system is being adopted by UEFA whereby clubs in European competition can only spend 70 per cent of their income.

Thursday’s Premier League shareholders meeting saw the 20 clubs hold two votes on the new rules, according to Sky Sports, one of which reached a unanimous verdict. Now said to be agreed in principle, the league will aim to enshrine in it their rulebook at their summer AGM.

Critics of the squad-cost ratio say it will only serve to keep the existing established order in tact, with the current biggest clubs able to bring in the most revenue. There are also questions over how clubs will be allowed to artificially increase revenue via sponsorships with businesses related to their ownership, particularly clubs with owners linked to wealthy states.

Opinion: A couple of points... The squad-cost ratio system will still stop ambitious owners from being able to invest beyond their turnover in order to compete with the wealthiest clubs, who have the highest turnovers.

A fairer system would be to allow owners to invest what they like, as long as the investment debt is levied against them personally & not the clubs.

Also a club's actual debt on their balance sheet should not exceed 25% of their turnover & the clubs must demonstrate they have the means & wherewithal to service that debt annually.

Another glaring issue is related parties. Why doesn't this apply to American owned clubs having sponsorship deals with American based & owned sponsors?

It's evident why these transatlantic sponsorship deals are seen as fine, but sponsors based in the same "exotic" countries as the club owners they sponsor, are viewed with suspicion & held to a higher standard of relatability tests?

Also which "State" in the world is wealthier than the United States of America?

If the above reports are true, the thick chasing pack & "Just happy to be in the PL" twats who voted for the squad-cost ratio system, have essentially voted to remain where they in perpetuity.

I'm sure this will suit the Red Top Mafia, Spuds, Chavs & City just fine. Talk about the rest being turkeys who're happy to vote for Christmas...

UnFuckinBelievable!

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/fo...rules-profit-sustainability-ffp-b1150904.html
Click to expand...
Club owners really must be complete numptys and take away all hope for their supporters of ever getting an ambitious owner. But I suppose they can still say, its all City’s fault. Also, I am sure they are not aware but City are not owned by a wealthy state. Dont understand how that has passed them by;-)1000018876.jpg
 
We've had the shit thrown at us over the last 10 years or so. As fans, we've had to develop thick skins, but it's a shame that we've had to be so defensive on many HYSs, even with all the success. Me included. Once these charges bollocks are out of the way, I won't be defending our club anymore. I'm just going to reply by laughing at every claim from then on. EVERY accusation will just get a "hahahahahahaha hahahahahaha"
 
Marklr said:
We've had the shit thrown at us over the last 10 years or so. As fans, we've had to develop thick skins, but it's a shame that we've had to be so defensive on many HYSs, even with all the success. Me included. Once these charges bollocks are out of the way, I won't be defending our club anymore. I'm just going to reply by laughing at every claim from then on. EVERY accusation will just get a "hahahahahahaha hahahahahaha"
Click to expand...
we;ll just no point watch football anymore lol
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
1 is sponsorship, so presumably Etihad & Etisalat
2 is Mancini & Fordham
3 & 4 aren't about failing FFP necessarily but not submitting accurate accounts for both the PL & UEFA. Those obviously depend on 1 & 2 but the latter is unlikely to involve material amounts.
Click to expand...
Isn't there a good chance PB that the Mancini & Fordham stuff will be time-barred?
 
BlueAnorak said:
It would be a complete laugh if we were found guilty of this - SIX clubs were fined by HMRC for incorrect tax payments (tax avoidance that were deemed near tax evasion by HMRC) as a result of their image rights deals. This includes Utd, Newcastle another Red Top and Southampton.
We weren't fined as we had continual discussions with HMRC - we closed the Fordam thing down and paid back tax without a fine - ie we came clean without an investigation.
It would be interesting to see how tax evasion by attempted legal means is less of a 'crime' with the PL than than near tax avoidance...
taxdisputes.co.uk

Man Utd and Newcastle amongst football clubs tackling HMRC tax investigations | HMRC Tax Disputes Solicitors & Barristers

After a six-year investigation into the sport, HMRC has recovered about £464 million from football players, clubs, and agents. In the last year alone, the revenue has recovered £55.6…
taxdisputes.co.uk taxdisputes.co.uk
Click to expand...
The allegations from the premier league are not about tax so I don’t see how your post makes sense
 
WRicko said:
The allegations from the premier league are not about tax so I don’t see how your post makes sense
Click to expand...
The whole point of the various club "Image Rights" schemes was to pay less money in tax to HMRC as a company and for the footballers as individuals and the clubs to keep more revenue.
This applies to the Fordam Scheme as well as the 6 schemes I mentioned
The point is lots of clubs were trying it on.
Our scheme was tax avoidance. 6 other clubs got fined for tax avoidance deenmed tantamount to tax evasion.
We closed down our scheme when our accountancy advisors realised HMRC would also come after us. We did the proper business thing and closed the scheme down and paid extra tax without investigation when we realised the scheme was untenable.
If we get done by the PL for our scheme then other clubs should get done by the PL for theirs.
I don't understand what you don't get.
 
BlueAnorak said:
The whole point of the various club "Image Rights" schemes was to pay less money in tax to HMRC as a company and for the footballers as individuals and the clubs to keep more revenue.
This applies to the Fordam Scheme as well as the 6 schemes I mentioned
The point is lots of clubs were trying it on.
Our scheme was tax avoidance. 6 other clubs got fined for tax avoidance deenmed tantamount to tax evasion.
We closed down our scheme when our accountancy advisors realised HMRC would also come after us. We did the proper business thing and closed the scheme down and paid extra tax without investigation when we realised the scheme was untenable.
If we get done by the PL for our scheme then other clubs should get done by the PL for theirs.
I don't understand what you don't get.
Click to expand...
But the PL are not trying to do City for tax dodging. They are suggesting the reverse, that City are overstating income to disguise owner subsidies, and hence busting sustainability rules.

The desparate nature of the PL claims is shown by the fact that they have to go back to the Mancini era which ended over ten years ago. Was FFP fully in operation 11-12 years ago?

It is laughable that a team that has been highly profitable for nine out of the last ten years. The exception is the lock-down year of 2019-20.

Currently three PL teams are profitable (three have not submitted reports): Brighton, City, and Bournemouth. Most of the others are losing money, especially United, Villa, and Spurs.
 
Slightly off topic remember the rumours the GPC used to swap out thise Brazilian twins rather than using subs, also Gazza admitting the reason he signed for Spurs was a £120k backhander to his Dad. Everyone seems to think that football was whiter than white back in the day.
 
BlueAnorak said:
The whole point of the various club "Image Rights" schemes was to pay less money in tax to HMRC as a company and for the footballers as individuals and the clubs to keep more revenue.
This applies to the Fordam Scheme as well as the 6 schemes I mentioned
The point is lots of clubs were trying it on.
Our scheme was tax avoidance. 6 other clubs got fined for tax avoidance deenmed tantamount to tax evasion.
We closed down our scheme when our accountancy advisors realised HMRC would also come after us. We did the proper business thing and closed the scheme down and paid extra tax without investigation when we realised the scheme was untenable.
If we get done by the PL for our scheme then other clubs should get done by the PL for theirs.
I don't understand what you don't get.
Click to expand...

The whole point of the Fordham arrangement was to get additional revenue into 2013 so the club wouldn't fail UEFA FFP.

I don't think any other clubs actually sold the rights to the use of their players' images in return for an up-front payment, which was the point of the arrangement for the club.

I don't know all the details of the Fordham arrangement, but I can't imagine there was anything commercially or fiscally wrong with it, with the proviso that there are some issues like the ADUG loss-underwriting which may present some issues to the PL.
 
abu13 said:
I hope not, this needs putting to bed once and for all.
Click to expand...

:) I know what you mean, but nothing will be "put to bed" whatever the outcome. People who want to look for conspiracy will still be able to do so even if the club is cleared of every single allegation.

The club will take the path of least resistance with the panel. If that means claiming time limitation, I am sure they will do it.
 
JGL07 said:
But the PL are not trying to do City for tax dodging. They are suggesting the reverse, that City are overstating income to disguise owner subsidies, and hence busting sustainability rules.

The desparate nature of the PL claims is shown by the fact that they have to go back to the Mancini era which ended over ten years ago. Was FFP fully in operation 11-12 years ago?

It is laughable that a team that has been highly profitable for nine out of the last ten years. The exception is the lock-down year of 2019-20.

Currently three PL teams are profitable (three have not submitted reports): Brighton, City, and Bournemouth. Most of the others are losing money, especially United, Villa, and Spurs.
Click to expand...
You are correct for the other charges but not for the Fordham one.
Image Rights are all about lowering the tax clubs and footballers pay - there is no other point to them.
Any income the scheme pays the club and players back is purely HMRC tax under payment (both Income Tax and NI) - no matter how the image Rights scheme tries to dress it up.
If we are guilty then probably EVERY club in the PL is guilty as the principles of every scheme is exactly the same.You take money that should be taxable and put it into a scheme that removes tax liability.
Taxable income goes into the scheme
Money back = club + player payments (with some or all of the tax liability removed).
The Image Rights company uses the tax savings as investment cash and also probably takes a cut of the tax savings in the process.
There is no real additional revenue - it is a tax avoidance scheme concocted by tax accountants to try and beat HMRC.
 
Last edited:
BlueAnorak said:
The whole point of the various club "Image Rights" schemes was to pay less money in tax to HMRC as a company and for the footballers as individuals and the clubs to keep more revenue.
This applies to the Fordam Scheme as well as the 6 schemes I mentioned
The point is lots of clubs were trying it on.
Our scheme was tax avoidance. 6 other clubs got fined for tax avoidance deenmed tantamount to tax evasion.
We closed down our scheme when our accountancy advisors realised HMRC would also come after us. We did the proper business thing and closed the scheme down and paid extra tax without investigation when we realised the scheme was untenable.
If we get done by the PL for our scheme then other clubs should get done by the PL for theirs.
I don't understand what you don't get.
Click to expand...
I agree tax is PARAMOUNT as Utd and others have demonstrated by having Cayman Accounts.

The various rule changes to implement FFP type of rules have simply brought the clubs closer to realizing that a proper business plan is needed if large debt, wasteful management, and excessive profit distribution are to be serviced.
All clubs would fairly benefit by ignoring control of club finances and allowing in PL as UK based the IR to decide these rules.
 
BlueAnorak said:
You are correct for the other charges but not for the Fordham one. Image Rights are all about lowering the tax clubs and footballers pay - there is no other point to them.
Any income the scheme pays the club and players back is purely HMRC tax under payment (both Income Tax and NI) - no matter how the image Rights scheme tries to dress it up.
If we are guilty then probably EVERY club in the PL is guilty.
Click to expand...
thats the point ive said to people, now every club should be investigated to the same degree, but the delay in proceedings has allowed the other clubs to cover their tracks
 
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