Just to be clear, you are aware that we didn't pick 2 of them? Each picked 1 (UEFA went for their reliable fallback of Ulrich Hans(sp)). We did suggest that we would be happy with a named 3rd who had knowledge of the case I think and UEFA were fine with him, so not 'picking' him in reality.It would be great to get clarification of that.
I’m sick of hearing other fans say that the whole case was 2 1. And that it’s only because we picked 2 of the panel.
You mis understand.
HMRC are investigating football clubs all the time. The image rights issue is being looked at as I type. There Is a process that HMRC follow in such matters and that’s a country mile away from going to the courts.
Chelsea and I suspect most clubs haven’t understated the payments , far from it, it’s where the payment ended up.
If you really believe that then you've not been paying attention to this thread.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.
I think it's more to do with "creative accounting" where the tax lawyers job is to minimise the payments made legally whilst pushing the boundaries. HMRC obviously disagreed on their interpretation of the regulations and "invited" them to pay up and stop doing whatever it was.Don't want to derail the thread, so my last post on this. But surely the issue is that where the payments ended up led to less tax being paid in the UK, which is why it was settled with tens of millions out of court? And if it was done deliberately to avoid paying tax in the UK when the regulations are clear, surely that is then tax evasion, which is a criminal activity. Whether HMRC decide to prosecute or not, or to settle, is irrelevant? Or are you saying, to paraphrase Nixon, it's not illegal when Chelsea settle out of court?
Anyway. It doesn't matter. Not really important in the wider context.
Edit: Chelsea with a background in football administration. Are you Simon Jordan?
I think it's more to do with "creative accounting" where the tax lawyers job is to minimise the payments made legally whilst pushing the boundaries. HMRC obviously disagreed on their interpretation of the regulations and "invited" them to pay up and stop doing whatever it was.
Were Chelsea punished by the PL/FA for this?
I don't suppose anyone has a searchable link for the CAS decision? I've searched online but can't find any free software to convert it to plain text.
Don't you need the paid for version for that? Does it work well if I do buy it?Throw the pdf in here:
pdf2go.com/pdf-to-text
Don't you need the paid for version for that? Does it work well if I do buy it?
I don’t doubt what you say but seems odd that they cannot set up oversea entities given that they are mostly foreign and their image is being used and paid for by foreign entitiesIndividual 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.
I imagine it can be paid anywhere but it has to be declared in the UK as it was earned in the UK?I don’t doubt what you say but seems odd that they cannot set up oversea entities given that they are mostly foreign and their image is being used and paid for by foreign entities