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

[halfcenturyup]

I'll admit, I couldn't get my head around some of it. Even still, it's amazing what these wealthy billionaire club owners get away with, while we pay our taxes without question or tax avoidance.

A very interesting but complicated Manchester United read. 5th. Unless you're an accountant.

City are 1st. ;-) The reason being......

https://www.taxjustice.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Final-Offshore-Game-Report.pdf

Strange report that. City are top, and always will be, as far as I can tell, for two reasons.

Firstly, no distinction is made between a club who provide finance from their owners' country of origin, say City, and one whose owners actively look to base their activities in a tax haven like, say, United. So having UAE owners bad. Tax havens not so much.

Secondly, A log scale really? So let's not punish clubs for having huge overseas debt, like, say, United.

Surprised?

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

I'll admit, I couldn't get my head around some of it. Even still, it's amazing what these wealthy billionaire club owners get away with, while we pay our taxes without question or tax avoidance.

A very interesting but complicated Manchester United read. 5th. Unless you're an accountant.

City are 1st. ;-) The reason being......

https://www.taxjustice.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Final-Offshore-Game-Report.pdf

Based on season 2013 / 14 during our growth phase - not worth the paper its written on 7+ years old

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Interesting. Looks like war between the 2 Arab-owned clubs & the PL.

 

[Corky]

If City abstain they are more like Switzerland rather than at war.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

In the Guardian as well.
They incorrectly refer to the Etihad deal as a “related party”.
Useless.

“It is believed that they did so on the basis of legal advice that the process was unlawful. City, who are owned by the Abu Dhabi United Group, have had deals that are known as related party transactions. An example was the one that saw Etihad Airways, the Abu Dhabi government-owned carrier, sponsor them.”

Premier League clubs vote to block Newcastle sponsorship deals at emergency meeting

Premier League clubs voted through legislation designed to prevent the Saudi owners from striking lucrative sponsorship deals

www.theguardian.com

 

[Chi-town blues]

If City abstain they are more like Switzerland rather than at war.

tbf they invented knife to cut cheese in different method.

 

[Northblue]

In the Guardian as well.
They incorrectly refer to the Etihad deal as a “related party”.
Useless.

“It is believed that they did so on the basis of legal advice that the process was unlawful. City, who are owned by the Abu Dhabi United Group, have had deals that are known as related party transactions. An example was the one that saw Etihad Airways, the Abu Dhabi government-owned carrier, sponsor them.”

Premier League clubs vote to block Newcastle sponsorship deals at emergency meeting

Premier League clubs voted through legislation designed to prevent the Saudi owners from striking lucrative sponsorship deals

www.theguardian.com

I mean it's basically a fact now it's been repeated so many times, much like the 'state owned' claim. Other journos have a wealth of "sources" like this one to cite when making the same claims.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Interesting. Looks like war between the 2 Arab-owned clubs & the PL.

Hmmmm. Presumably it's only a 3 week block to enable the PL to take legal advice, hopefully because they're being threatened with legal action. If so, we'll find out what that advice is shortly after.

 

[Norbiton]

Leicester voted in favour from the comfort of their King Power stadium? How hypocritical can you get?

 

[waspish]

Why don’t they have rule these history clubs that they won’t sell to Newcastle hey!? Oh right there money is fine when it filling the yanks pockets. Utter kunts these yank owned clubs those the ones who are the problem!