PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Mr Grumpy said:
Breakfast: 1st meal of the day. Fairly obvious, anything up to mid-morning ish. (i.e McD's)
Lunch: Midday ish.
Tea (Slang) : Main meal after finishing work in the late afternoon/Early evening.
Dinner (Formal): Main meal of the day and can be anything from lunchtime onwards but not left quite so late as Tea. Usually requires a supper for the hungrier bastards in the world.
Click to expand...

Ffs it’s a barm
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The worst thing about the "time barring" element is that it was debunked in the Judges' report, which also used the phrase "no evidence" 11 times, but the media wilfully chose to ignore what the Judges said. The "time barring" narrative was apparently pushed out by other PL Club Directors in conversation with journalists. It didn't seem to originate from the UEFA camp. City should have stamped on it. Morons like Carragher are still using it as a mantra. None of these clowns have even bothered to read the published evidence.
Click to expand...
You’re implying Carragher can read words of more than two syllables, that’s seems bit of a stretch.
 
TedofChume said:
My old fella was a chartered accountant and he always told he when employing subcontractors you need to do two things to prove they're not employees: 1) make sure they're doing the same type of work for someone else and 2) make sure they have the right of substitution ie they can send someone else of comparable skill/ability/clout to do the job. If you don't do this you run the risk of them being classed as employees which is fair enough.

The bottom line is, these guys all earn a fortune, they're grown men and can pay a tax advisor or accountant to tell them what their sitiatiom and liability is.

In short, it's his own stupid bloody fault if he gets done.
Click to expand...
I've zero sympathy for the big nosed prick...
 
Any "whispers"?
Any 'ITK's' with insider info?
Any "rumours on Twittex"?
Any "impromptu press gatherings at the Etihad"?
Any "heard from a sources"?
Any "there's a feeling growing in certain circles"?

No?


Right, I'll wait for the thread headline to change.
 
Chris in London said:
They aren't. (That is, they weren't written before the tribunal started to hear the case. I hope they've finished them by now.)

The tribunal's job will be (a) decide what the facts are, (b) decide what the law is, and (c) apply that law to those facts.

So the tribunal will have to identify what are the relevant propositions of law, identify which are agreed between City and the PL (which is probably most of them if not all) and in the case of any that are not agreed summarise each side's contentions and set out their conclusions in the decision.

There may be cases, and this may be one, where the relevant propositions of law are agreed between the parties and are summarised in an earlier court decision, in which case those summaries can be cut-and-pasted from those previous decisions, but you only know that when you've heard what each party has got to say about a particular point.
Click to expand...
Roger that!
 
our tommy said:
Here is a quote from a recent tax tribunal involving Phil Thompson

"Thompson would also seek permission from Sky if he was going to work for another broadcaster. The FTT also heard that Sky had the right to require Thompson to express opinions that he did not believe or limit his own opinions. The FTT found that the control Sky had over Thompson’s services was significant."

Confirms what we probably already knew.
Click to expand...
1742393364898.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top