Tony Atwood. There’s a loon. Wrote how City were going bust because Etihad was making losses! Anyone calling out his nonsense cannot be all bad.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
The new PL rules could be interpreted as saying a common country of origin of both owner and sponsor automatically raises the question of “associated parties”. Note that the PL have introduced this new concept as it is clear that our sponsorship by AbuDhabi companies are not related as defined by IAS24. Stevan’s view was that these rules were aimed squarely at us, noting the inclusion of group membership as another stick to beat us with.
Surely Tax Treaties between countries sort out which of them taxes the global income of a person.?
In other words it is possible that a person can earn most of their income in UK but be taxed on the whole of that income in another country.
Tax treaties
Find out information on the UK's tax treaties, related taxation documents and multilateral agreements.www.gov.uk
I don’t believe any of this happened but looking at the allegations I don’t know or follow I am afraid.
If Mancini was paid by a club in the UAE for work that was actually for Man City I would assume he would have paid tax in the UAE not here that’s where it came from after all and it would be odd to volunteer to pay more tax pay tax in a country where the money did not come from. What would the implications be of paying tax in the UK where it was actually earned but having received it from / in the UAE would he have to pay it in both. Are any check carried out by other bodies in football etc ? Would they say hold on ur City contract says ur paid x but you have paid more tax as if your paid y
Not a useful point but coming on to this thread is deflating.
Not through what is said by anyone but us having to go through this tiresome witch-hunt.
You could say well don’t look at the thread but it’s one of the very few media sources I trust (though some theories seem a bit far fetched). And we can’t bury our heads in the sand over something so important.
So I visit twice a day.
Not through what is said by anyone but us having to go through this tiresome witch-hunt.
You could say well don’t look at the thread but it’s one of the very few media sources I trust (though some theories seem a bit far fetched). And we can’t bury our heads in the sand over something so important.
So I visit twice a day.
The point I was trying to make is
Was it because of FFP City Group paid Mancini in the way they did, outsourced IR or because they did the FFP charges followed?
Why I make the point is the MancinI money for instance really was insignificant in the overall scheme of things
You are talking about what happens if the charges are proven around unpaid personal taxes then being disclosed . At this time that really isn’t an issue but even if the charges are proven I really can’t see that there are any extra tax implications save image rights.
HMRC we’re already all over image rights issue within the industry and yes the way in which City dealt with them for the period in question complicates matters but their structure isn’t or wasn’t illegal at worse it will be viewed as contrary to PL rules.
Almost certainly going forward City will or have had to agree a settlement with HMRC but that would be the case even if these charges hadn’t been laid
Again I really can’t see that Mancini’s dual contracts were contrary to UK taxation rules and I would be staggered if his accountants or the City group haven’t declared the income meaning it will have already been taxed be it in the UK, in the UAE or most likely in Italy.
edit. the fact there is a contract between Mancinis company and the UAE club is fact. Was it a way of disguising income that will be a subjective call by the tribunal using a lower burden of proof than will be required if the UK tax authorities decide to get involved but my view was and still is HMRC will steer well clear of this if the money has been declared elsewhere
You then come on to the sponsorship that was neither understated or indeed did it come from illegal sources .
That isn't what is being said.
Unless I have missed something I am pretty sure that all the disputed payments can be tracked back to the likes of Ethiad. The claim is that the not all of it originated from the sponsors. I am not sure what if any tax implications there are or could be.
Then finally you are into the failure to engage with the investigation no tax implications there for me.
Last edited:
Centurions
Well-Known Member
It's looking more likely to be resolved sooner rather than later at this moment, although that may depend on the panels decision of course. Hopefully we can all rest easy in a few weeks or months.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Pretty much spot on I think excepting that the Etihad money did originate with the AD government but then it is the state airline. I think that was covered by the open skies investigation in the States.
As I have pointed out many times I detest the way in which FFP was finally implemented. It should have been all about debt If wealthy people want to put money into football that’s fine by me but alas thats not what the PL and UEFA eventually went with.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
And what if SM and Khaldoon both say we're innocent so we're fighting it tooth and nail? Which is what Khaldoon has basically stated already.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
I would suggest they actually have more knowledge of the subject than many on here, I'm not sure which bit you think is wumming but I've not seen anything.
If posts were restricted to only people who knew what they were talking about on here then we'd have only around 5 pages rather than 1,700 plus.