City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I am getting a bit ahead of events at the moment but I look with interest (pun) at CFG of which City are a member.

This global approach by ADUG may not make Man City the financial centre of the operations.

When massive profits are eventually made will they look to the best way of retaining this profit Amazon style or will our tax authorities understand global investments as a tax deduction ?
In fact could ADUG channel certain sponsors to pay their 'premiums' direct to a tax saving geographical area ? That way MCFC would only get turnover applicable to its balance sheet needs.

Alternatively, maybe a Holding Company charge from a tax haven (Abu Dhabi ?) would do the same job.

Not a tax expert but why should ADUG pay tax in this country if the benefit to global sponsors is a global or even country reward eg Insurance Companies in Indonesia paying for player use in their local adverts.

ALL Abu Dhabi owned companies (at least those associated with the royal family) are known to pay tax at the point the revenues are generated.

MCFC for example pay UK tax as they are a UK registered business.

Thanks fbloke, however it does seem that having a Holding Company (CFG) in between MCFC and ADUG has a little bit of mileage regarding the possibility for inter company business.

Its common practice where many companies are owned by one company or individual.

I would say that relevant tax will be paid in the US, UK and Aus (and soon S Africa and Argentina) as its all part of the image building that is going on.

It is however going to be interesting to see how the revenues are distributed.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

ALL Abu Dhabi owned companies (at least those associated with the royal family) are known to pay tax at the point the revenues are generated.

MCFC for example pay UK tax as they are a UK registered business.

Thanks fbloke, however it does seem that having a Holding Company (CFG) in between MCFC and ADUG has a little bit of mileage regarding the possibility for inter company business.

Its common practice where many companies are owned by one company or individual.

I would say that relevant tax will be paid in the US, UK and Aus (and soon S Africa and Argentina) as its all part of the image building that is going on.

It is however going to be interesting to see how the revenues are distributed.

What information do you have about S. Africa and Argentina?

 

[SilverFox2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

ALL Abu Dhabi owned companies (at least those associated with the royal family) are known to pay tax at the point the revenues are generated.

MCFC for example pay UK tax as they are a UK registered business.

Thanks fbloke, however it does seem that having a Holding Company (CFG) in between MCFC and ADUG has a little bit of mileage regarding the possibility for inter company business.

Its common practice where many companies are owned by one company or individual.

I would say that relevant tax will be paid in the US, UK and Aus (and soon S Africa and Argentina) as its all part of the image building that is going on.

It is however going to be interesting to see how the revenues are distributed.

Thanks again fbloke and like BluessinceHydeRoad I find the SA and Argie bits new.

Regarding my post, my reference to the Holding Company was based on the probability that invoices would flow between the member companies and the Holding Company (and possibly ADUG).
Therefore yes they would pay tax in their respective countries but the final amount before tax may not be the same as before inter company trade.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Thanks fbloke, however it does seem that having a Holding Company (CFG) in between MCFC and ADUG has a little bit of mileage regarding the possibility for inter company business.

Its common practice where many companies are owned by one company or individual.

I would say that relevant tax will be paid in the US, UK and Aus (and soon S Africa and Argentina) as its all part of the image building that is going on.

It is however going to be interesting to see how the revenues are distributed.

Thanks again fbloke and like BluessinceHydeRoad I find the SA and Argie bits new.

Regarding my post, my reference to the Holding Company was based on the probability that invoices would flow between the member companies and the Holding Company (and possibly ADUG).
Therefore yes they would pay tax in their respective countries but the final amount before tax may not be the same as before inter company trade.

It's pleasing to read this thread knowing that certain clubs based in this country but with foreign owners are adept at finding ways to avoid paying Corporation Tax.

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I thought everyone knew about the S Africa and Argentina plans?

They basically talk about them on the stadium tour iirc.

 

[kippaxblue76]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I thought everyone knew about the S Africa and Argentina plans?

They basically talk about them on the stadium tour iirc.

News to me.

 

[Mancini Manus Domini]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I thought everyone knew about the S Africa and Argentina plans?

They basically talk about them on the stadium tour iirc.

What are the plans?

 

[Patientman63]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I thought everyone knew about the S Africa and Argentina plans?

They basically talk about them on the stadium tour iirc.

You have my full and undivided...

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

To be within £30/£40 million off the rags turnover is enough for me especially when you factor into they are about £400 million behind us squad wise and our wage bill will massively drop with all the new pay structures and there's is going to massively increase with all the new signings and desperation wages they are having to throw about.

I agree. As long as our revenues going forward are enough to sustain a decent enough net transfer spend each year to remain competitive at the top of the league while complying with FFP then that will do for me for the time being. If that's the case I'm not really arsed about getting into pointless pissing contests with the Rags about who has the biggest turnover. Of course, with everything that's going on behind the scenes it could well be that we do overhaul them sometime in the next 3-5 years in the revenue stakes and that would annoy them no end which would be amusing to see!

I am getting a bit ahead of events at the moment but I look with interest (pun) at CFG of which City are a member.

This global approach by ADUG may not make Man City the financial centre of the operations.

When massive profits are eventually made will they look to the best way of retaining this profit Amazon style or will our tax authorities understand global investments as a tax deduction ?
In fact could ADUG channel certain sponsors to pay their 'premiums' direct to a tax saving geographical area ? That way MCFC would only get turnover applicable to its balance sheet needs.

Alternatively, maybe a Holding Company charge from a tax haven (Abu Dhabi ?) would do the same job.

Not a tax expert but why should ADUG pay tax in this country if the benefit to global sponsors is a global or even country reward eg Insurance Companies in Indonesia paying for player use in their local adverts.

Tax is payable on profits not on income. We could have income of £1bn a year and spend £300m a year on players and if we made no profit we'd pay no tax.

 

[Citizen in Pakistan]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

when will our latest details of accounts would be released?