Lord Blue
Well-Known Member
most definitely not
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Lord Blue
Well-Known Member
hmm beating QPR 3-2 probably turned out to mean more than if we had beaten them 3-0 mind you.
LeonardoDaVnci
Well-Known Member
Not another anti City social media influencer attempting to eek out a living by producing unabashed City hatred, so that's Goldridge, Magic Twat aka Harris, Flowers, Harris aka Magic Twat, There just isn't enough hours in the day for your average City hating footy fan...
Step increase in the SM shite today, probably means we have made good progress in the APT cases. Also collective arse twitching after the LCFC victory...
.
Step increase in the SM shite today, probably means we have made good progress in the APT cases. Also collective arse twitching after the LCFC victory...
.
bluemanchester
Well-Known Member
She has aged a bit in this photo but you wouldn't argue with her then or when she was younger.Rory Bluelow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 May 2014
- Messages
- 2,927
Prof Haas an academic at Zurich University & the UEFA nominee did indeed vote against City, but I don’t think you can say he agreed with them !
Based on a write-up by his Research Assistant, he constructed an argument which ignored the substantive charges and the evidence (or lack of) presented. He based his entire position on a very personal (& somewhat bizarre) view about the significance of City’s “non-cooperation” even though CAS reduced the fine for this offence by 2/3. By hiding behind this tiniest of fig-leaves, his vote was an important face-saver for UEFA.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,911
No I think this one’s called Terry Fukwit….
Documents that have been around and pored over for literally years
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,942
Jeez. Some people do anything for clicks.
Mancini doesn't affect the true and fair view at all and didn't breach any of the two manager rules referred to. And it will be time limited. But apart from that - panic.
manimanc
Well-Known Member
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,942
I was trying to find the document. Do you have it?
He the wan that created the Scotch egg aye?
It’s relevant albeit loosely but thought this little snippet was interesting
www.thesun.co.uk
Without having all the dots it wouldn’t seem likely that Newcastle have had to settle with HMRC the tx/nic/interest re payments made to agents.
The reference to Nic would suggest to me that the payments in question relate to sums paid by NUFC in relation to players own liabilities in effect making them Benefits in Kind.
If that is correct that has to mean is that NUFC have understated the sums paid to players if for no other reason that NUFC paying the tax means the initial P11D submissions re benefits in kind almost certainly will have been grossed up but by making further tax/nic payments to HMRC the original numbers will be incorrect
I believe that Man U still have a similar matter on going .
Newcastle cough up £10MILLION to settle HMRC spat from Mike Ashley's ownership
NEWCASTLE UNITED have coughed up £10million to settle a long-running tax battle with HMRC – including millions in legal fees and costs from the row. The club faced a £6.25m bill – befor…
www.thesun.co.uk
Without having all the dots it wouldn’t seem likely that Newcastle have had to settle with HMRC the tx/nic/interest re payments made to agents.
The reference to Nic would suggest to me that the payments in question relate to sums paid by NUFC in relation to players own liabilities in effect making them Benefits in Kind.
If that is correct that has to mean is that NUFC have understated the sums paid to players if for no other reason that NUFC paying the tax means the initial P11D submissions re benefits in kind almost certainly will have been grossed up but by making further tax/nic payments to HMRC the original numbers will be incorrect
I believe that Man U still have a similar matter on going .
manimanc
Well-Known Member
I've just left a couple of remarks on the comments section on the video.
Mardarse.
Deluded.
Bitter.
Comical.
A fuckin influencer.
Do me a favour.
Champions again in 2012
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 May 2012
- Messages
- 1,207
- Location
- I'm not really here
- Team supported
- Is there any other team?
So, does this have significant PSR implicationsIt’s relevant albeit loosely but thought this little snippet was interesting
Newcastle cough up £10MILLION to settle HMRC spat from Mike Ashley's ownership
NEWCASTLE UNITED have coughed up £10million to settle a long-running tax battle with HMRC – including millions in legal fees and costs from the row. The club faced a £6.25m bill – befor…
Without having all the dots it wouldn’t seem likely that Newcastle have had to settle with HMRC the tx/nic/interest re payments made to agents.
The reference to Nic would suggest to me that the payments in question relate to sums paid by NUFC in relation to players own liabilities in effect making them Benefits in Kind.
If that is correct that has to mean is that NUFC have understated the sums paid to players if for no other reason that NUFC paying the tax means the initial P11D submissions re benefits in kind almost certainly will have been grossed up but by making further tax/nic payments to HMRC the original numbers will be incorrect
I believe that Man U still have a similar matter on going .
Would this fall under disguising payments? I.e. what City are being accused of.It’s relevant albeit loosely but thought this little snippet was interesting
Newcastle cough up £10MILLION to settle HMRC spat from Mike Ashley's ownership
NEWCASTLE UNITED have coughed up £10million to settle a long-running tax battle with HMRC – including millions in legal fees and costs from the row. The club faced a £6.25m bill – befor…
Without having all the dots it wouldn’t seem likely that Newcastle have had to settle with HMRC the tx/nic/interest re payments made to agents.
The reference to Nic would suggest to me that the payments in question relate to sums paid by NUFC in relation to players own liabilities in effect making them Benefits in Kind.
If that is correct that has to mean is that NUFC have understated the sums paid to players if for no other reason that NUFC paying the tax means the initial P11D submissions re benefits in kind almost certainly will have been grossed up but by making further tax/nic payments to HMRC the original numbers will be incorrect
I believe that Man U still have a similar matter on going .
nmc
Well-Known Member
How? How long was she in the role? Days? Some suggestion she didn’t even start.
nmc
Well-Known Member
Is this posted by David Icke? Never fails to surprise me how many people on Twitter have security service levels of inside info…. Social media really has promoted some utter fuckwits to a relative level of prominence.
johnnytapia
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 12,428
johnnytapia
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 12,428
Does make you wonder
To be fair club after club have had to settle these type of issues with HMRC but for me the fact remains that the overall cost or expense relating to a transaction has been/ was understated