The general rule seems to be that no more than 10% of a player's total remuneration can be paid as image rights, unless there are special circumstances.I believe around ten clubs were originally targeted, with six of those cases being settled quickly. The other four appear to be disputing HMRC's demands, including united & Newcastle.Several clubs were surcharged by the taxman for image rights issues. None were charged as yet by the PL.
It's not just rags though, is it?
He probably gets more hits from non rags. You only have to look at the interest he gets on here to see that
Remember to smash the Like button when you are there.In your opinion.
First, you don't know he hasn't got a letter any more than some people think he may have. We will see today. Or not.
Second, by saying he hates City, it's just as possible you're being gullible in believing his act? Which is it? He is a United fan who hates City? Or he is faking being a United fan? In which case, he is presumably faking his hate of City.
I don't know why people get so upset by him. He has made a ton of money playing a part. Good for him. Believe what he says? Good for you (for one, not you personally). My view is that, apart from his rants, he doesn't seem to add much value. But getting upset by City fans watching him for entertainment while United are so bad? No harm in that, imho. It makes him a little more money? Who cares. It's performance art for free.
But if he libels the club, then I am interested to see what happens ....
He's made money!!!!
Today's great get out of jail card. Bravo!! If he's willing to sell his soul, look a pathetic prick, be a complete hypocrite etc - all for the mana of lucre then, unfortunately we have to tolerate it (or not watch it). Mind you - there'd be very little TV or social media if making an utter bellend of yourself and having zero self-respect was discouraged.
Why do you hate star wars so much?With a face like that, a specialised one. Would get many a part in Star Wars.
Remember to smash the Like button when you are there.
Not for me, he's a liar. Quite basic really. But let's see what he reveals today. Should be good.
Do we know what time he will show his letter?Ooooo. Slay. Or not. I will go and have a look at what he says if anyone says it was interesting, otherwise I won't bother. If other people want to watch his videos and smash the like button that is fine with me as well.
Yep. Should be good. Or not. Interesting either way.
Half past never.Do we know what time he will show his letter?
I'll rephrase.Half past never.
Is it not subscribes that he makes his money.It's not just rags though, is it?
He probably gets more hits from non rags. You only have to look at the interest he gets on here to see that
No idea, I’ve never seen any of his shows live, just when they’ve got battered,I'll rephrase.
What time will he show his letter or pull his 'no letter to show' stunt?
I don’t believe a single thing he says with that funny glass and mild botox on his cheeks. I hope you bait him .Jordan confirmed this AM they had no letter
Do we know what time he will show his letter?
If only his parents had a French one.Do we know what time he will show his letter?
…“sir your due date was 3 weeks ago, now you must pay late fees “I say that about letters I don't like all the time.
"We sent you 2 letters about this bill being overdue"
"Have you, really? I've never seen one!"
I would have been surprised if any individuals from media stations are sent lettersJordan confirmed this AM they had no letter
That's about right, I always understood that the liability was with the parent organization or the controlling interest, therefore you don't take on an individual journalist but his companyI would have been surprised if any individuals from media stations are sent letters
If they are being targeted it is more likely the station itself has been a recipient.
There are multiple presenters who have spoke of City in a derogatory way. Much easier to send a letter to the organisation
Most journalists are classed as self-employed (despite affiliations), so perhaps slightly different.That's about right, I always understood that the liability was with the parent organization or the controlling interest, therefore you don't take on an individual journalist but his company