PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

The whole point of the various club "Image Rights" schemes was to pay less money in tax to HMRC as a company and for the footballers as individuals and the clubs to keep more revenue.
This applies to the Fordam Scheme as well as the 6 schemes I mentioned
The point is lots of clubs were trying it on.
Our scheme was tax avoidance. 6 other clubs got fined for tax avoidance deenmed tantamount to tax evasion.
We closed down our scheme when our accountancy advisors realised HMRC would also come after us. We did the proper business thing and closed the scheme down and paid extra tax without investigation when we realised the scheme was untenable.
If we get done by the PL for our scheme then other clubs should get done by the PL for theirs.
I don't understand what you don't get.

The whole point of the Fordham arrangement was to get additional revenue into 2013 so the club wouldn't fail UEFA FFP.

I don't think any other clubs actually sold the rights to the use of their players' images in return for an up-front payment, which was the point of the arrangement for the club.

I don't know all the details of the Fordham arrangement, but I can't imagine there was anything commercially or fiscally wrong with it, with the proviso that there are some issues like the ADUG loss-underwriting which may present some issues to the PL.

 

[abu13]

Yes, imho. A very good chance.

I hope not, this needs putting to bed once and for all.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I hope not, this needs putting to bed once and for all.

:) I know what you mean, but nothing will be "put to bed" whatever the outcome. People who want to look for conspiracy will still be able to do so even if the club is cleared of every single allegation.

The club will take the path of least resistance with the panel. If that means claiming time limitation, I am sure they will do it.

 

[BlueAnorak]

But the PL are not trying to do City for tax dodging. They are suggesting the reverse, that City are overstating income to disguise owner subsidies, and hence busting sustainability rules.

The desparate nature of the PL claims is shown by the fact that they have to go back to the Mancini era which ended over ten years ago. Was FFP fully in operation 11-12 years ago?

It is laughable that a team that has been highly profitable for nine out of the last ten years. The exception is the lock-down year of 2019-20.

Currently three PL teams are profitable (three have not submitted reports): Brighton, City, and Bournemouth. Most of the others are losing money, especially United, Villa, and Spurs.

You are correct for the other charges but not for the Fordham one.
Image Rights are all about lowering the tax clubs and footballers pay - there is no other point to them.
Any income the scheme pays the club and players back is purely HMRC tax under payment (both Income Tax and NI) - no matter how the image Rights scheme tries to dress it up.
If we are guilty then probably EVERY club in the PL is guilty as the principles of every scheme is exactly the same.You take money that should be taxable and put it into a scheme that removes tax liability.
Taxable income goes into the scheme
Money back = club + player payments (with some or all of the tax liability removed).
The Image Rights company uses the tax savings as investment cash and also probably takes a cut of the tax savings in the process.
There is no real additional revenue - it is a tax avoidance scheme concocted by tax accountants to try and beat HMRC.

 

[SilverFox2]

The whole point of the various club "Image Rights" schemes was to pay less money in tax to HMRC as a company and for the footballers as individuals and the clubs to keep more revenue.
This applies to the Fordam Scheme as well as the 6 schemes I mentioned
The point is lots of clubs were trying it on.
Our scheme was tax avoidance. 6 other clubs got fined for tax avoidance deenmed tantamount to tax evasion.
We closed down our scheme when our accountancy advisors realised HMRC would also come after us. We did the proper business thing and closed the scheme down and paid extra tax without investigation when we realised the scheme was untenable.
If we get done by the PL for our scheme then other clubs should get done by the PL for theirs.
I don't understand what you don't get.

I agree tax is PARAMOUNT as Utd and others have demonstrated by having Cayman Accounts.

The various rule changes to implement FFP type of rules have simply brought the clubs closer to realizing that a proper business plan is needed if large debt, wasteful management, and excessive profit distribution are to be serviced.
All clubs would fairly benefit by ignoring control of club finances and allowing in PL as UK based the IR to decide these rules.

 

[spinney]

You are correct for the other charges but not for the Fordham one. Image Rights are all about lowering the tax clubs and footballers pay - there is no other point to them.
Any income the scheme pays the club and players back is purely HMRC tax under payment (both Income Tax and NI) - no matter how the image Rights scheme tries to dress it up.
If we are guilty then probably EVERY club in the PL is guilty.

thats the point ive said to people, now every club should be investigated to the same degree, but the delay in proceedings has allowed the other clubs to cover their tracks

 

[Coatigan]

Fuck off!

This week, on '@domalino goes laconic'..

 

[Coatigan]

Yes, imho. A very good chance.

And PL FFP/PSR did not exist at that point.

 

[halfcenturyup]

View attachment 113714

Premier League clubs have reportedly agreed in principle to adopt new rules to control costs.

A number of alternative options, such as a luxury tax and salary cap, have been discussed by fans and pundits but the league appears ready to press ahead with a squad-cost ratio system.

This will allow clubs to spend up to 85 per cent of their revenue on transfers, wages and agent fees. A similar system is being adopted by UEFA whereby clubs in European competition can only spend 70 per cent of their income.

Thursday’s Premier League shareholders meeting saw the 20 clubs hold two votes on the new rules, according to Sky Sports, one of which reached a unanimous verdict. Now said to be agreed in principle, the league will aim to enshrine in it their rulebook at their summer AGM.

Critics of the squad-cost ratio say it will only serve to keep the existing established order in tact, with the current biggest clubs able to bring in the most revenue. There are also questions over how clubs will be allowed to artificially increase revenue via sponsorships with businesses related to their ownership, particularly clubs with owners linked to wealthy states.

Opinion: A couple of points... The squad-cost ratio system will still stop ambitious owners from being able to invest beyond their turnover in order to compete with the wealthiest clubs, who have the highest turnovers.

A fairer system would be to allow owners to invest what they like, as long as the investment debt is levied against them personally & not the clubs.

Also a club's actual debt on their balance sheet should not exceed 25% of their turnover & the clubs must demonstrate they have the means & wherewithal to service that debt annually.

Another glaring issue is related parties. Why doesn't this apply to American owned clubs having sponsorship deals with American based & owned sponsors?

It's evident why these transatlantic sponsorship deals are seen as fine, but sponsors based in the same "exotic" countries as the club owners they sponsor, are viewed with suspicion & held to a higher standard of relatability tests?

Also which "State" in the world is wealthier than the United States of America?

If the above reports are true, the thick chasing pack & "Just happy to be in the PL" twats who voted for the squad-cost ratio system, have essentially voted to remain where they in perpetuity.

I'm sure this will suit the Red Top Mafia, Spuds, Chavs & City just fine. Talk about the rest being turkeys who're happy to vote for Christmas...

UnFuckinBelievable!

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/fo...rules-profit-sustainability-ffp-b1150904.html

A few points to think about on this latest FFP proposal.

1 Firstly, it shows up the luxury tax talk last week as the nonsense it was and points the leaky finger at just a couple of US-owned clubs, imo. I know who my likely suspect is.

2 No-one in the press ever points out that UEFA still has a break-even requirement in their FFP regulations. So any club playing in Europe won't just have a 70% restriction on squad cost, but will also have a break-even target.

3 The only good thing about the current break-even requirement in the PL is that it looks at profitability over a three year period. So a bad year (by missing CL for a year, for example) can be offset by two better years. These new rules are year by year (you miss the CL, you better make sure you can reduce squad cost the next year).

4 There is no talk of a defined sanction scheme. If there is one thing the PL should have learned in the last twelve months (but probably hasn't) it is that clubs should know what the punishments are at the start, not find out a year after breaching the rules. Even UEFA have learned that.

5 The whole thing is still retrospective and not proactive. The PL should be looking at next year's forecasts and regulating acquisitions/ disposals in advance rather than punishing when the harm is already done.

Anyway, enough. We can all rip it to bits when it is actually finalised.

:)

 

[willipp]

:) I know what you mean, but nothing will be "put to bed" whatever the outcome. People who want to look for conspiracy will still be able to do so even if the club is cleared of every single allegation.

The club will take the path of least resistance with the panel. If that means claiming time limitation, I am sure they will do it.

We all know what the narrative will be if we are cleared, it’s pointless anyone hoping for any different. We will have to continue to stand our ground and fight our corner and sadly put up with years of opposition fans and the media spouting the same old rubbish.