PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Indeed, as is the idea that City intend to ‘finally clear their name’……

If an immaterial punishment were offered in exchange for a guilty finding on all charges, City would snap your cock off for it.

You don't think City have already been offered that plea bargain?

We have accused them of grand scale phishing, which is why we continue to assert the narrative "clear and obvious"

We brokered a pinch with Platini and Uefa, because we didn't want to harm the business at that time.

These Premier League accusations/charges threaten the very existence of the Club and are so much more serious, possibly threaten jail time for some individuals.

We have spent four years playing legal footsie when all we had to do was take another pinch?

The Premier League wanted to keep this all in-house and yet we preferred to have our day before an independent panel.

That should tell us this isn't a zero sum game, the Club want to clear our name once and for all.

I have to trust you don't gamble a £4bn asset on the premise we bet it all on black.

 

[Ric]

So what have I missed?
There seems to be a sudden negative outlook in this thread.

Literally nothing has changed, as far as I’m aware. The club remain confident they’ll be cleared of the most serious charges, so that’ll do for me. Some people are convinced it’ll be a stitch-up, but I’d like to believe the panel will be impartial. Little point in stressing about hypotheticals at this stage, especially as this is still likely to run for some time.

 

[Keeper!]

You don't think City have already been offered that plea bargain?

We have accused them of grand scale phishing, which is why we continue to assert the narrative "clear and obvious"

We brokered a pinch with Platini and Uefa, because we didn't want to harm the business at that time.

These Premier League accusations/charges threaten the very existence of the Club and are so much more serious, possibly threaten jail time for some individuals.

We have spent four years playing legal footsie when all we had to do was take another pinch?

The Premier League wanted to keep this all in-house and yet we preferred to have our day before an independent panel.

That should tell us this isn't a zero sum game, the Club want to clear our name once and for all.

I have to trust you don't gamble a £4bn asset on the premise we bet it all on black.

100% this, as you rightly said, we fell for that nonsense with UEFA and see where that go us!

This time we 100% have to be cleared of any sort of accountancy fraud/sponsorship doctoring to stop the rumours.

I can see them finding us guilty on the non-compliance but in the big picture that is absolutely nothing.

 

[Keeper!]

Maybe that's because Simon Jordan on talksport is allowed to spew lies and hate and mention city with its "manufactured club with no history" claim and the ordinary fans takes it as gospel I know I know I'm guilty of listening to ts but he can't help himself he has to drag city into any argument ...I really hope he slips up one day with his words but he's there for a reason and is getting away with it

Anyone and I mean anyone who gets upset with comments like"manufactured club with no history", need to grow a pair.

If our "irrefutable evidence" is just that, all those type of statements from the media will have to end, or I would think the people/organisations behind them will end up in the courts, and that would be long overdue.

 

[Keeper!]

And how would you prove that someone's opinion lacked impartiality ?

 

[willipp]

You don't think City have already been offered that plea bargain?

We have accused them of grand scale phishing, which is why we continue to assert the narrative "clear and obvious"

We brokered a pinch with Platini and Uefa, because we didn't want to harm the business at that time.

These Premier League accusations/charges threaten the very existence of the Club and are so much more serious, possibly threaten jail time for some individuals.

We have spent four years playing legal footsie when all we had to do was take another pinch?

The Premier League wanted to keep this all in-house and yet we preferred to have our day before an independent panel.

That should tell us this isn't a zero sum game, the Club want to clear our name once and for all.

I have to trust you don't gamble a £4bn asset on the premise we bet it all on black.

It’s almost as if some people would rather we were found guilty so they can carry on the doom and gloom. Your last sentence is what gives me the confidence we will be ok.

 

[Bandofblues]

Literally nothing has changed, as far as I’m aware. The club remain confident they’ll be cleared of the most serious charges, so that’ll do for me. Some people are convinced it’ll be a stitch-up, but I’d like to believe the panel will be impartial. Little point in stressing about hypotheticals at this stage, especially as this is still likely to run for some time.

LOL 1700 pages summarised in just 4 sentences :-)

 

[PistonBlue]

Maybe that's because Simon Jordan on talksport is allowed to spew lies and hate and mention city with its "manufactured club with no history" claim and the ordinary fans takes it as gospel I know I know I'm guilty of listening to ts but he can't help himself he has to drag city into any argument ...I really hope he slips up one day with his words but he's there for a reason and is getting away with it

Manufactured posh bloke, likes others to think he's intelligent, but actually has a very poor history in football finance. I genuinely don't know why anyone listens to him let alone pays any attention to him.

 

[terraloon]

Just a question about the player's remuneration.
How is their individual sponsorship (e.g. boots) get paid? To them directly or through the club?

Individual boot deals with say Nike are separate in that they are between the players and the sponsor and have an agreed value.

Image rights are in effect an agreement between the club who agree to pay a sum ( it used to be a set % but it’s now a quantified and independently validated number on a player by player basis) of a player’s overall pay in effect by way of compensation allowing the club to use the players image for instance in club commercial activities.

The principal of these payments are completely legit .

HMRC wanted to stop them in the day ( or Inland Revenue as it was then )but the lost a trial case against Arsenal and certain players but football being football the clubs, the player, the agents pushed it too far and the % of players wages that clubs were paying into companies was stupid some times 90% hence why The FA became involved and they and HMRC agreed a framework which remains in place to this day but….

When a player signs a contract all the financial details have to be listed on the contract and that is lodged with the PL and the FA and that includes the image rights payment

The rules in this country are clear that all of player’s remuneration per the contract have to be be made by the club.They can not be made by any other entity

It gets even more complex and something that’s a live topic in that HMRC are actively looking at payments in respect of image rights.They, HMRC , have no issue if they are paid in line with the terms of that Arsenal ruling because that tribunal gave the green light because these payments were paid into UK based companies who in turn will pay CT , if appropriate VAT , etc

The problem now is that if the payment goes to an off shore company, which many players have set up then it’s deemed by HMRC to be tax evasion. Most if not all PL and indeed Championship clubs are or were under investigation. My club , Chelsea, it seems have settled with HMRC the issue was disclosed during Bohleys due diligence and a vast sum ( tens of millions) was diverted from the sale proceeds to clear this matter up.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Individual boot deals with say Nike are separate in that they are between the players and the sponsor and have an agreed value.

Image rights are in effect an agreement between the club who agree to pay a sum ( it used to be a set % but it’s now a quantified and independently validated number on a player by player basis) of a player’s overall pay in effect by way of compensation allowing the club to use the players image for instance in club commercial activities.

The principal of these payments are completely legit .

HMRC wanted to stop them in the day ( or Inland Revenue as it was then )but the lost a trial case against Arsenal and certain players but football being football the clubs, the player, the agents pushed it too far and the % of players wages that clubs were paying into companies was stupid some times 90% hence why The FA became involved and they and HMRC agreed a framework which remains in place to this day but….

When a player signs a contract all the financial details have to be listed on the contract and that is lodged with the PL and the FA and that includes the image rights payment

The rules in this country are clear that all of player’s remuneration per the contract have to be be made by the club.

It gets even more complex and something that’s a live topic in that HMRC are actively looking at payments in respect of image rights.They, HMRC , have no issue if they are paid in line with the terms of that Arsenal ruling because that tribunal gave the green light because these payments were paid into UK based companies who in turn will pay CT , if appropriate VAT , etc

The problem now is that if the payment goes to an off shore company, which many players have set up then it’s deemed by HMRC to be tax evasion. Most if not all PL and indeed Championship clubs are or were under investigation. My club , Chelsea, it seems have settled with HMRC the issue was disclosed during Bohleys due diligence and a vast sum ( tens of millions) was diverted from the sale proceeds to clear this matter up.

Isn't tax evasion a criminal offence?