Only thing I can think is if the rags get bought out by Qatar Liverpool be in the shit with the no buyers at the moment stuck with FSG who love taking money out! If Qatar can have two clubs also maybe Liverpool hoping someone from Abu Dhabi buy them!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Only thing I can think is if the rags get bought out by Qatar Liverpool be in the shit with the no buyers at the moment stuck with FSG who love taking money out! If Qatar can have two clubs also maybe Liverpool hoping someone from Abu Dhabi buy them!
Is he not alluding to Burnley, who someone on here said had distanced themselves from the hateful 9.Isn’t it saying that the cartel is led by LFC rather than specifying which other Club’s Board we met with. It’s not very clear.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
You mention payment offshore etc but many players are foreign so say for instance Spain has a tax treaty with UK so would pay all global tax based on most residence days during each countries financial year.Clubs are required to adhere to the convention ( if that’s the right word) agreed or allowable under HMRC regulations.Image rights have been the subject of a number of tax tribunals. In terms of HMRC they really didn’t get a clear direction until 2019
As long ago as 2109 over 44 professional clubs and 177 players were under investigation following issues around payment of image rights.It used the be the case that there was an acceptable % paid by way of image rights but the approach now is that the image rights payments are valued on a player by player basis.Such valuations are independent.
Under both FA rules and indeed copied into the PL rule book (I can’t find such restrictions in either FIFA or UEFA rule sums payable have to be paid by the club or from a subsidiary company within the group.I am not sure that’s an historical rule but suspect the wording in older FA versions would have said something along the lines all payments have to be made by the club.
As the image rights have to be included in the players standard contract they can not be paid by a third party
It is allowable to pay the image rights into a UK registered company but payments to an offshore company are considered to be remuneration and subject to both PAYE and Class 1 NIC.
My understanding is that when Bohley and his associates purchased Chelsea issues with taxation apparently part of which revoked around image rights was an issue and Chelsea seemingly made a voluntary disclosure.
Is this treaty observed?
Very informative but are you tell me I said something wrong ?Clubs are required to adhere to the convention ( if that’s the right word) agreed or allowable under HMRC regulations.Image rights have been the subject of a number of tax tribunals. In terms of HMRC they really didn’t get a clear direction until 2019
As long ago as 2109 over 44 professional clubs and 177 players were under investigation following issues around payment of image rights.It used the be the case that there was an acceptable % paid by way of image rights but the approach now is that the image rights payments are valued on a player by player basis.Such valuations are independent.
Under both FA rules and indeed copied into the PL rule book (I can’t find such restrictions in either FIFA or UEFA rule sums payable have to be paid by the club or from a subsidiary company within the group.I am not sure that’s an historical rule but suspect the wording in older FA versions would have said something along the lines all payments have to be made by the club.
As the image rights have to be included in the players standard contract they can not be paid by a third party
It is allowable to pay the image rights into a UK registered company but payments to an offshore company are considered to be remuneration and subject to both PAYE and Class 1 NIC.
My understanding is that when Bohley and his associates purchased Chelsea issues with taxation apparently part of which revoked around image rights was an issue and Chelsea seemingly made a voluntary disclosure.
Tim of the Oak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2012
- Messages
- 18,736
It could be Burnley or Newcastle I guess.Is he not alluding to Burnley, who someone on here said had distanced themselves from the hateful 9.
Stefan trying to explain things to our friend Nick again I see, must be like Groundhog Day for him…
No matter how times he’s told ‘Sportingintel’ just parrots his uninformed nonsense anyway.
He's more Sporting Incel than Sporting Intel. (Nick not Stefan).
Manchester_City_Blue
Well-Known Member
Might be misremembering but I think many pages back someone alluded to it being BurnelyIt could be Burnley or Newcastle I guess.
Might be misremembering but I think many pages back someone alluded to it being Burnely
Correct
birchwoodgingerste
Well-Known Member
The top 6-10 clubs will all have Arab owners soon if the superleague goes ahead.They will all want in on it.Only thing I can think is if the rags get bought out by Qatar Liverpool be in the shit with the no buyers at the moment stuck with FSG who love taking money out! If Qatar can have two clubs also maybe Liverpool hoping someone from Abu Dhabi buy them!
Winchester
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2020
- Messages
- 2,761
- Team supported
- Mcfc
Can some1 explain to me
Are all these allegations regarding VAR as reported on here going to actually help us?
Tbh I'm confused to Kingdom come
Are all these allegations regarding VAR as reported on here going to actually help us?
Tbh I'm confused to Kingdom come