They can inject as much as they like, it's more about how they inject it. They can do it via sponsorships as long as those are at market value. Abramovich regularly had to put cash into Chelsea as they spent more than they earned. Same with us before Shinawatra took over and Wardle and Makin had to regularly lend us cash. That alone should be a bit of a red flag.Charming
Why I think the issue around Swiss Law is relevant is quite simply this there are differences around such issues as admissibly of evidence but the main point is even then CAS isn’t a court of law but UEFA are bound by Swiss Law
The whole process that the PL and City are now engaged in is different in terms of time baring etc but many of the charges that City face weren’t put before CAS quite simply it wasn’t within their remit
I tried to make the point in a previous post if the issues around Mancini’s contract and of course the IR issue if they are proven , and I say if, then other charges around FFP and Profit and Sustainability then have to be looked at differently
The point I was making , or should I say was trying to make when saying FFP allowances I was talking about the sums an owner can inject by way of equity
Yes, of course. There isn't one. Glad to be of service.Haven't checked this thread in a long time - Is someone able to give a quick update (if any)?
Mcfc is screwed but also not guilty. The rest is for the lawyers to fight over to get paid -:)Haven't checked this thread in a long time - Is someone able to give a quick update (if any)?
Hope you’re right I really doI am not sure we will see any seismic change tbh. I wouldn’t be surprised to find a joint statement by city and the premier. Something along the lines of the dispute has been settled. The league is happy with the evidence provided. Probably try to take the moral high ground by stating that they have a duty to investigate any club blah blah to ensure transparency and fairness.
The league seems to be going after areas Uefa did not touch. @tolmie's hairdoo could be correct when he said 95% is off the table as it mainly pertains to Cas. It’s the other stuff that is the only concern, Fordham etc.
Far too much at stake. My gut is telling me a quiet settlement behind closed doors.
First off it wasn’t City Football Group that paid him this extra money it was a UAE club owned by the Sheik but outside the group.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.
By all accounts, that's precisely what we did :)Whatever we paid Mancini, double it.
That would be the forum total ;-)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.
I hope you are right but I think there is too much poison around. To charge City with 100 plus offences and accuse our senior leaders of false accounting is going nuclear. It is not a tactic which suggests compromise.I am not sure we will see any seismic change tbh. I wouldn’t be surprised to find a joint statement by city and the premier. Something along the lines of the dispute has been settled. The league is happy with the evidence provided. Probably try to take the moral high ground by stating that they have a duty to investigate any club blah blah to ensure transparency and fairness.
The league seems to be going after areas Uefa did not touch. @tolmie's hairdoo could be correct when he said 95% is off the table as it mainly pertains to Cas. It’s the other stuff that is the only concern, Fordham etc.
Far too much at stake. My gut is telling me a quiet settlement behind closed doors.