PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[WRicko]

As I say I haven’t seen anything to suggest to me, (a Chelsea supporter who has a background in some of these matters ) to suggest that city have filed with HMRC and or Companies House accounts that understate income.

The Mancini Contracts do pose a question for the football authorities but I very much doubt that HMRC would be that interested in money paid out and accounted for under other nations tax regiemes

It’s not just city that probably have an image rights issue but that will almost be a separate debating point.
For most clubs it’s one issue but for city the problem is wider because of the issue re selling image rights off.That I suspect is something additional that HMRC will be taking a view on but not sure it’s close to fraud.
The question for me in this regard is did the other entity pay the players and account for tax etc ? If not why not?

In this area cities biggest issue for me is how they sold off rights as I am far from sure that complies with the PL rules on such matters.

You’re telling me HMRC won’t be interested in a large some of money paid to a high profile manager of a premier league club in a different country under a different tax regime instead of the one this one. If it was true income tax and national insurance would have been avoided

 

[Big Joe Corrigan]

Aren't their accounts untouchable because they are registered in the Caymen Islands?

Exactly.

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

The High Court?

Well there is no appeal allowed with Premier League Kangaroo courts so I'm assuming if they find us guilty, City can take the PL to the high court

 

[Bloominmarvellous]

That poster is a rag so doubt he will agree with that , too busy throwing shade at the moment

Yes I am a utd fan but I also work in law hence my interest in this case, the hmrc investigation I mentioned and the recent Newcastle hmrc case.

If I was throwing shade perhaps I would have once made comment on guilt but i haven't because there is none.

You might want to look at how many premier league clubs have satellite clubs before thinking it was a dig at your lot.

 

[SilvaisSkyBlue]

For clarity I am not implying it has anything to do with city.

No players or the club involved have been named. It could be any club that has related satellite clubs.

I was just pointing out that the hmrc are already showing a keen interest in football finances and tax schemes.

Everyone knows you are completely trustworthy, I mean you joined only after the latest PL charges, all your posts are about the charges, and of course you are not implying City & it’s satellite clubs, just out of interest which other club with satellite clubs were you implying?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I am just wondering why the charges are up until 2018.
Did our accounting change since then? If there are any problems with our image rights payments, Etihad deal, other sponsor payments etc, did anything change after 2018? or if they have been potentially breaking PL rules all those years do they still break those same rules in last 5 years too each year?

We seemingly stopped paying image rights via Fordham in 2018 and brought them in-house. But, as I've said before, my guess would be that we reported them to UEFA after 2015, when they discussed these with us.

 

[WRicko]

You can have 100% legal books that still deceive the Premier League.

Inflating sponsorships, paying players and managers off the books, disguising owner investment...these are all things that would constitute dishonest accounting from the Premier League's point of view but not criminal fraud.

Why would it not amount to fraud

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Hmrc are already looking into players tax avoidance schemes from my understanding. Saw a legal bulletin and allegedly over 300 players are being investigated and one premier league club for paying agent fees through satellite clubs.

United have admitted in their accounts being involved in discussions with HMRC. As a public company, they have to disclose any such matters. I'd also expect any other, privately owned club to do so though.

 

[KS55]

You can have 100% legal books that still deceive the Premier League.

Inflating sponsorships, paying players and managers off the books, disguising owner investment...these are all things that would constitute dishonest accounting from the Premier League's point of view but not criminal fraud.

Disguising owner investment would likely be illegal.

 

[Bez]

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

By observing their behaviour and actions in the tribunal, the plausibility and consistency of their arguments, their acknowledgement of facts that have been evidenced in the room etc etc

If City present irrefutable evidence for a specific allegation and one of the tribunal members still decides to vote that City is guilty for that specific allegation this would indicate to me the tribunal member had an agenda and was not being impartial.