PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Nevizade said:
Should have mentioned when I asked him which English club has been banned from Europe for FFP breaches he couldn't answer that one either. Funny old game.

Anyway back to meal discussions...
Click to expand...
Good one. You should of mentioned that they managed to get all English clubs banned from Europe at the same time
 
Last edited:
City Raider said:
Had a minor set to with a rag this morning. Was getting nowhere until I said, in fairness it’s not your fault you are ignorant of any facts apart from those you are spoon fed. It’s not your club. Imagine it was though. Wouldn’t you want to know absolutely everything? Read everything, try and understand as much as you can? That’s what we’ve been doing for years now.

So don’t take on any blues in a serious debate. We’ve forgotten more than you’ll ever know.
Click to expand...
How true. We've all had to become football finance experts. It's ridiculous really we just want to support our team.
 
Tracking back said:
Working class:

Breakfast
Dinner
Tea

Middle class:

Breakfast
Lunch
Dinner

Upper class:

Breakfast
Lunch
Afternoon tea
Supper
Click to expand...

Breakfast
Dinner
Tea
Supper

The correct order - in terms of the Lunch/Dinner debate, when you were in Primary School who looked after you during the midday break....Lunch Ladies, or Dinner Ladies? There endeth the debate on that.
 
danielwood5 said:
I've put this on here before but it bears repeating.
At the time of the takeover I read an article by a Canadian journalist that was about the Formula 1 races being held in Dubai? (I know nothing about Formula 1 but it was the first race to be held in the Middle East) and Etihad had begun sponsoring Ferrari, I think Sheikh Mansour bought shares in Ferrari too.
Anyway, City had a brief mention when they were discussing the sporting and cultural institutions that Middle Eastern, and in particular UAE countries, were getting involved with and the article was about why these countries were branching out in to these fields.
The consensus of the article was that one of the main driving factors was to help bring their society into a more Western capitalist mindset rather than one based on religion and the hierarchies of the nomadic tribes that are native to the area.
It spoke about how the ruling families were all western educated at places like Oxford, Cambridge and the US Ivy League universities but the religious Imam's still held a lot of sway over the people and on how the countries are run. They figured that bringing sporting events to the country and getting involved in sports other than horse racing abroad would help introduce the general population of the Middle East to worldview's and cultures outside of their normal experiences which would take some of the control away from some of the stricter Imams. This would then allow them to have more control of the country and remove some of the more oppressive religious laws. This would in turn help them to make their countries more open to becoming tourist destinations allowing them to diversify their economies.
This was written well before the concept of sportswashing was invented and at the time I thought it made perfect sense, definitely more sense than the sportswashing accusations. We can definitely tell that people in Abu Dhabi are seeing more of UK culture through City by the meltdowns we see online from Middle Eastern people when Pride and the like is mentioned, although with the rise of the religious far-right here, and in particular the US, maybe the religious intolerance of the Middle East is spreading in the west rather than western tolerance being spread to the Middle East, but I digress.
Having said all that, unlike seemingly every scouser under the sun, I have very, very little knowledge of the social, economic, political or religious setup of the Middle East so who knows.
Click to expand...
Makes sense follows what I said. I do wonder how conservative these places are and how much sway religion and tribes have over things. I mean on the face of it Abu and Dubai don’t seem to match the law of the land there lots of western expats lots of young people western educated elites think you can do what you can here so long as your in the hotel. Not sure what it’s like out and about and what the law is exactly. I thought the country was run by politicians business etc not religious peoples I don’t know what it’s like out in the other areas. But you have that in America with the Bible Belt being different to New York
 
Lee the Blue said:
Breakfast
Dinner
Tea
Supper

The correct order - in terms of the Lunch/Dinner debate, when you were in Primary School who looked after you during the midday break....Lunch Ladies, or Dinner Ladies? There endeth the debate on that.
Click to expand...
That's how I grew up but with a caviat.

If you worked in some factories in the northwest in the 1980s (and presumably before that) there was an additional meal - lunch. But the "Lunch" was an extra meal squeezed in between breakfast and dinner, usually around 10am, and people would have bacon and egg butties etc, especially if they'd started on earlies.
 
Chris in London said:
It certainly is possible to have 2 interpretations, otherwise they wouldn't have been in front of the tax tribunal in the first place.

That said, I'm not so sure it is only a theoretical power. However the clause might be interpreted or enforced, it seems to be established beyond any doubt that the clause actually formed part of Phil Thompson's actual contract with Sky. One assumes that this contract was (a) drafted by Sky/Sky's lawyers, (b) was regularly presented to employees/contributors such as Thompson on a "take it or leave it" basis rather than being a bespoke contract produced following careful negotiation, and (c) the clause was required and inserted by Sky for a reason. One imagines that other regular contributors such as Merson, Le Tissier et al all had similar contracts, and it is not difficult to imagine that at some point or other Sky's producers have invoked that contractual language even if an employment or tax lawyer would assert a "reasonableness" qualification.

Ultimately, of course, all broadcasters have final editorial control over all contributors by virtue of the simple expedient that they can give them the boot if they say things the broadcaster doesn't like (Mike Summerbee's ongoing absence from Sky may be an example of this).

That is not to say Phil Thompson was ever specifically directed by Sky to say X when his true opinion was Y, but again, if that particular contractual requirement is never invoked, one wonders what it was put there for in the first place.
Click to expand...
It is a pretty typical term and was not specifically, editorially related. It is a common myth that people are told what to say by "the bosses". There is no evidence in the Thompson case of that at all. On the contrary. The clause is far more about reasonable control of someone you are paying for - go to Studio A, be there by 2.30 etc. I think it is largely conspiracy theory nonsense to suggest pundits are specifically directed what to say.

Thompson didn't even wear an earpiece.

"The format of the show was three hours of general discussion, following which the panellists would put on headphones and discuss features of a live match as they arose. These were the panellists’ own opinions rather than commentating. The Host, Jeff Stelling, would lead the discussion.

Mr Thompson did not wear an earpiece to receive instructions and would not be given any direction other than the floor manager signalling to him to wrap up."
 
Lee the Blue said:
Breakfast
Dinner
Tea
Supper

The correct order - in terms of the Lunch/Dinner debate, when you were in Primary School who looked after you during the midday break....Lunch Ladies, or Dinner Ladies? There endeth the debate on that.
Click to expand...
It's not a debate. It's a matter of perspective.

I've got a friend who went to a prominent boarding school. When I invited him over for tea one evening he reciprocated by inviting me over to his house for supper the following week.

We ate our meals at the same time however, mine was tea and his was supper.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Surely there will be a summary page that is clear enough? 99% of people shouldn't have to make it past that page?

Won't this be more like the CAS award which was pretty clear from the get go, rather than the APT case which was (made to be) "unnecessarily" vague and tortuous?
Click to expand...
On the contrary - do you really believe this unequivocal summary dealt with the CAS situation for most observers. Absolutely not. And, as you know, I also disagree with point 2 here re APT. It was necessarily nuanced because that was the finding of the tribunal.
1742396258379.png
 
Tracking back said:
It's not a debate. It's a matter of perspective.

I've got a friend who went to a prominent boarding school. When I invited him over for tea one evening he reciprocated by inviting me over to his house for supper the following week.

We ate our meals at the same time however, mine was tea and his was supper.
Click to expand...

Then you bummed each other?
 
slbsn said:
It is a pretty typical term and was not specifically, editorially related. It is a common myth that people are told what to say by "the bosses". There is no evidence in the Thompson case of that at all. On the contrary. The clause is far more about reasonable control of someone you are paying for - go to Studio A, be there by 2.30 etc. I think it is largely conspiracy theory nonsense to suggest pundits are specifically directed what to say.

Thompson didn't even wear an earpiece.

"The format of the show was three hours of general discussion, following which the panellists would put on headphones and discuss features of a live match as they arose. These were the panellists’ own opinions rather than commentating. The Host, Jeff Stelling, would lead the discussion.

Mr Thompson did not wear an earpiece to receive instructions and would not be given any direction other than the floor manager signalling to him to wrap up."
Click to expand...

On the other hand, it’s no secret that in the interests of generating debate a presenter will often articulate a point of view with which they may not wholeheartedly agree. These issues, as I understand it, are the sorts of things more frequently discussed in production meetings than the subject of direct instruction via an earpiece.

Whilst it almost certainly overstates the case to say that a particular presenter‘s views are actually dictated for them by the producers - I think back to the infamous Sunday Supplement episode after Yaya signed, where I suspect none of the contributors on that day had the slightest need of editorial input - but equally to say that there is never any editorial input seem to overstate the case the other way.
 
TedofChume said:
My old fella was a chartered accountant and he always told he when employing subcontractors you need to do two things to prove they're not employees: 1) make sure they're doing the same type of work for someone else and 2) make sure they have the right of substitution ie they can send someone else of comparable skill/ability/clout to do the job. If you don't do this you run the risk of them being classed as employees which is fair enough.

The bottom line is, these guys all earn a fortune, they're grown men and can pay a tax advisor or accountant to tell them what their sitiatiom and liability is.

In short, it's his own stupid bloody fault if he gets done.
Click to expand...
With IR35 it’s more complicated than that. The contractor needs to be able to dictate pretty much everything about the way the job is performed. How, where and when. Big nose (and the others getting caught) was told ‘where’ to work and ‘when’ to work on too many occasions, so it became routine and triggered the investigation. The onus on complying with IR35 used to be on the contractor for a long time but moved to the payer a few years back, but you have always been able to get contracts reviewed and tested and insurance against HMRC investigations and fines, these greedy buggers probably chose to save the money instead. I haven’t worked outside IR35 for 4 years but still pay for insurance just in case. Think after 6 years I can cancel.
 
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