PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

thomas1307 said:


surely this has got to be breaking some rules
Click to expand...

There used to be a thing which multinationals did to evade tax called "transfer pricing" where you sell cheaper to another company in a group or subsidiary etc so the profit could be made in a low tax country.

I said in 2010 or so they clubs could do it in a different way, and City did with Mooy, bought for about £2m by Melbourne then came to City (no fee) and loaned before being sold for about £10m, and that was all of the MCFC profit that year.
 
Corky said:
There used to be a thing which multinationals did to evade tax called "transfer pricing" where you sell cheaper to another company in a group or subsidiary etc so the profit could be made in a low tax country.

I said in 2010 or so they clubs could do it in a different way, and City did with Mooy, bought for about £2m by Melbourne then came to City (no fee) and loaned before being sold for about £10m, and that was all of the MCFC profit that year.
Click to expand...
okay fair enough
 
thomas1307 said:
okay fair enough
Click to expand...
Not fair enough. The purpose is not to "evade" tax. And this is not what is alleged here (nor what happened with Mooy). The allegation is making up transfer values based on IOUs for other future deals when one of the parties was a 40% owner in a different PL club and the other club was at risk of breaching PSR and getting a points deduction. If proven it is breaches a lot of rules. And he appears to have admitted it.
 
Joemar99 said:
At risk of overthinking, anyone concerned about Pep’s conference today? Lasted just two minutes and very blunt.

Reading between the lines, something definitely not right. Hopefully not 115!
Click to expand...
Try not to let it get to you. Maybe if you wait another 3 years before your next post it will have all gone away by then.



crying-crying-baby.gif
 
slbsn said:
Not fair enough. The purpose is not to "evade" tax. And this is not what is alleged here (nor what happened with Mooy). The allegation is making up transfer values based on IOUs for other future deals when one of the parties was a 40% owner in a different PL club and the other club was at risk of breaching PSR and getting a points deduction. If proven it is breaches a lot of rules. And he appears to have admitted it.
Click to expand...
ok sorry i have no clue about any of the rules around all this thought it looked dodgy by what the article was saying
 
In the past three years there's several transfer deals between clubs owned by Textor and Marinakis. These were raised by lawyers acting for Palace in their submission to the Court of Arbitration for Sport when appealing Uefa’s decision to demote them from the Europa League to the Conference League and promote Forest in their place, specifically to show the relationship between Lyon and Forest was stronger than any existing link between Lyon and Palace.

Forest fans at the time thought the sale of Matt Turner to Lyon was massively undervalued. The sale of him plus Mangala and Niakhate, all to Lyon, brought in £55m or so to Forest. I'm not sure specifically what advantages that gave Forest or whether it represents fair market value, but it's very murky and a sustained, repeated pattern of dealings between clubs with a now officially acknowledged relationship behind the scenes. It may also have expedited the sale of Cherki to us, although he may have moved anyway, but Lyon very surely needed that cash this past summer despite having just given Forest millions ..

Needs to be a serious look into the deals for the above, plus Igor Jesus, Jair Paula, Cuiabano, John Victor, Danilo. Textor does come across as the clueless or untouchable type, and clearly from the millions he's made he's not the former.
 
slbsn said:
Not fair enough. The purpose is not to "evade" tax. And this is not what is alleged here (nor what happened with Mooy). The allegation is making up transfer values based on IOUs for other future deals when one of the parties was a 40% owner in a different PL club and the other club was at risk of breaching PSR and getting a points deduction. If proven it is breaches a lot of rules. And he appears to have admitted it.
Click to expand...

Just out of interest, I am sure you are right but which rules does it breach when there is no formal relationship between the two parties? And how is this different to the end of season weird "connected" transfers between clubs a couple of seasons ago that were waived through by the PL?
 
Last edited:
Corky said:
There used to be a thing which multinationals did to evade tax called "transfer pricing" where you sell cheaper to another company in a group or subsidiary etc so the profit could be made in a low tax country.

I said in 2010 or so they clubs could do it in a different way, and City did with Mooy, bought for about £2m by Melbourne then came to City (no fee) and loaned before being sold for about £10m, and that was all of the MCFC profit that year.
Click to expand...


Getting creative with valuation in transfer pricing is still very much a thing, believe me.
 
slbsn said:
Not fair enough. The purpose is not to "evade" tax. And this is not what is alleged here (nor what happened with Mooy). The allegation is making up transfer values based on IOUs for other future deals when one of the parties was a 40% owner in a different PL club and the other club was at risk of breaching PSR and getting a points deduction. If proven it is breaches a lot of rules. And he appears to have admitted it.
Click to expand...
Very naughty.
 
leithblue said:
Getting creative with valuation in transfer pricing is still very much a thing, believe me.
Click to expand...

When I was working in Switzerland we had a world-wide price structure (well, with mark-ups for some countries but that is a different story) and a carefully crafted transfer pricing structure to leave just enough taxable profit in each country.

Most of the profit (and we were talking 90% margins here) remained in Switzerland where the goods were produced (or at least were miraculously warehoused centrally) and where it was taxed at a ridiculously low rate because we were the major employer and taxpayer in the Canton.

When the financial analysts asked us if we would care to explain the effective tax rate, we would say no :)

Happy days. Sorry, enough Jackanory .....
 
I heard something of interest on TV last night, namely that the state of New Mexico is in fact older than the country Mexico. Now, I don't know how true this is and have no actual contactable sources for this information, so please don't shoot the messenger if it's not actually correct, I just found it interesting. Make of that what you will.
 
the-ecstacy-of-eight said:
I heard something of interest on TV last night, namely that the state of New Mexico is in fact older than the country Mexico. Now, I don't know how true this is and have no actual contactable sources for this information, so please don't shoot the messenger if it's not actually correct, I just found it interesting. Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...
is this another bacon and watercress moment?
 
the-ecstacy-of-eight said:
I heard something of interest on TV last night, namely that the state of New Mexico is in fact older than the country Mexico. Now, I don't know how true this is and have no actual contactable sources for this information, so please don't shoot the messenger if it's not actually correct, I just found it interesting. Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...
Hmm, sorta.
New Mexico wasn't a state until 1912, but New Mexico as a name existed before that (since early 16th Century), applying to that general area.

Mexico the country gained independence from Spain in 1821, but the name derives from the local name for the central area of the Aztec empire, way, way before that.

Since the name for the area of New Mexico was named after the original Mexico, and didn't exist as a state until well after Mexico became a country, I would say the claim is highly dubious.


(source: Wikipedia)
 
Blue Lemon said:
Hmm, sorta.
New Mexico wasn't a state until 1912, but New Mexico as a name existed before that (since early 16th Century), applying to that general area.

Mexico the country gained independence from Spain in 1821, but the name derives from the local name for the central area of the Aztec empire, way, way before that.

Since the name for the area of New Mexico was named after the original Mexico, and didn't exist as a state until well after Mexico became a country, I would say the claim is highly dubious.


(source: Wikipedia)
Click to expand...
Still, It must be a sign of some sort!!
 
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