Media thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
give it to gordon said:
View attachment 73514

Lol to keep up with our rivals lol....like who ?

Cant think of any rivals that have a better football campus than City.

Wonder why the headline didnt say Abu Dhabi State owned ? Unlike the mail to miss that
Click to expand...
It's a lovely narrative that we are 'splurging' to keep pace with of our Premier League rivals.

I mean, just take a look at the industry leaders over at Old Scaffold Anfield errrr Spurs?
 
domalino said:
Yeah this is the research the BBC quotes. Take note of the top 5 teams -
image-26-1024x522.png


Here's how the BBC summarise it.

" the teams thought to have benefitted most from dual representation in the past few years include Manchester City, Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea. "


Hmm. Someone is missing!
Click to expand...

Ah right so its "estimated" and we all know how accurate estimates are... Oh Its City add an extra couple of million on, ah United and Liverpool, cant have them appearing higher, lets knock a few million off. Well its only an estimate, we didn't specify the level of accuracy...blah blah blah.
 
Kompany Car said:
Ah right so its "estimated" and we all know how accurate estimates are... Oh Its City add an extra couple of million on, ah United and Liverpool, cant have them appearing higher, lets knock a few million off. Well its only an estimate, we didn't specify the level of accuracy...blah blah blah.
Click to expand...
"Premier League football clubs may have avoided paying £250m in tax over a three-year period, financial experts have estimated."

"HM Revenue and Customs said it was investigating "a number of clubs".
We do not know which clubs are being investigated"

"The Tax Policy Associates think tank has estimated the practice is potentially worth tens of millions of pounds a year."

"Tax Policy Associates estimates the practice may have saved top players, their agents and their acquiring clubs £81m in 2019, £91m in 2020 and £81m in 2021"

"In 2021, Tax Policy Associates estimates Manchester City saved £10.9m in tax"

"All its estimates are based on the assumption that player and club split the agent fee 50:50"

"In theory, the FA has rules against an agent acting for both the player and the club. But if all parties provide written consent to use dual representation, the practice is technically allowed"


So many ifs, buts and maybes that it's turned the article into a joke.
 
hertsblue said:
See the BBC running a story about PL clubs saving 250 million in tax and no surprise names us 1st before Rags, Arsenal and Chelsea then much lower down the artical mentions us 1st again then throws the Dippers in.
They also state Chelsea were the biggest savers but we know what the BBC are like with their bias, why not list in Alphabetical order or Chelsea 1st as biggest savers but they put our name 1st twice.
Wish we would just ban the BBC and refuse to do MOTD interviews
Click to expand...
They also showed two stadiums, while the story was running, Ours and Wembley
 
domalino said:
Yeah this is the research the BBC quotes. Take note of the top 5 teams -
image-26-1024x522.png


Here's how the BBC summarise it.

" the teams thought to have benefitted most from dual representation in the past few years include Manchester City, Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea. "


Hmm. Someone is missing!
Click to expand...
And how much tax have the Rags avoided by being registered in the Cayman Islands?
 
Kompany Car said:
Ah right so its "estimated" and we all know how accurate estimates are... Oh Its City add an extra couple of million on, ah United and Liverpool, cant have them appearing higher, lets knock a few million off. Well its only an estimate, we didn't specify the level of accuracy...blah blah blah.
Click to expand...

Dan Niedle the guy who did the research is incredibly thorough and accurate. He’s basing it off the amount of agents fees paid and the amount paid via dual representation, which is public data.

I think the estimate is because you can’t know for certain how what the fair value or agent services are to clubs for each signing.


The reporting is a problem, not the actual research IMO, although IMO it’s an overreaction to a debatable grey area.
 
domalino said:
Dan Niedle the guy who did the research is incredibly thorough and accurate. He’s basing it off the amount of agents fees paid and the amount paid via dual representation, which is public data.

I think the estimate is because you can’t know for certain how what the fair value or agent services are to clubs for each signing.


The reporting is a problem, not the actual research IMO, although IMO it’s an overreaction to a debatable grey area.
Click to expand...
It’s utter bobbins then. You can’t give an estimate (unless you’re a dodgy builder) which has any worth and stands up to scrutiny, unless you define the level of uncertainty.
I’m pretty sure though, that if he did give a value, it would undermine the way they have been ranked.
 
Kompany Car said:
It’s utter bobbins then. You can’t give an estimate (unless you’re a dodgy builder) which has any worth and stands up to scrutiny, unless you define the level of uncertainty.
I’m pretty sure though, that if he did give a value, it would undermine the way they have been ranked.
Click to expand...
It's assuming the agent works on behalf of the player and not the club and should therefore be paid by the player.

That's a reasonable assumption, it's probably near 100% accurate, but you can't know for sure, so he's couched it by saying it's an estimate.

The guy investigating this is the guy who brought down Nadhim Zahawi, he's not manipulating figures to make City look bad, his target is the Conservative government.
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
I thought tax avoidance was a perfectly legitimate passtime for the rich and famous.
Ask Rishi Sunak and all his mates in Parliament. Who gives a fuck.
Click to expand...
the allegation is the avoidance relies on bogus payment schemes to player agents and is thus tax evasion which is not legal
 
hertsblue said:
See the BBC running a story about PL clubs saving 250 million in tax and no surprise names us 1st before Rags, Arsenal and Chelsea then much lower down the artical mentions us 1st again then throws the Dippers in.
They also state Chelsea were the biggest savers but we know what the BBC are like with their bias, why not list in Alphabetical order or Chelsea 1st as biggest savers but they put our name 1st twice.
Wish we would just ban the BBC and refuse to do MOTD interviews
Click to expand...
It's easy
Just don't watch bbc and don't read any of the bullshit . It worked for me years ago. CTID
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top