PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[BlueAnorak]

These image rights schemes are now historical, no auditors are going to try and alter already summitted books to 'cover their tracks'. That's just paranoid conspiracy nonsense.

It kind of depends if the PL would investigate other club schemes and apply the same penalties.
They won't of course - some would say that is conspiracy - I just call it for what it is - HYPOCRACY.
This charge is a stick to hit us with. If the PL hit us with a guilty verdict, we will state "Why are other clubs not being investigated as they all PL teams did it, indeed HMRC decided 6 çlub schemes were illegal?" (list of all club schemes included with tax "savings" for each club specified - not diffifult for a tax accountant to determine from a clubs accounts).
The hateful anti-City "sports" journalists won't care, and will only run with the Anti-City angle, but business journalists will.

 

[waspish]

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.

Yep if anyone expects social media to be any different it won't individuals nobody's Bots on X with no followers around the world will still be spouting this shit!

 

[KS55]

Slightly off topic remember the rumours the GPC used to swap out thise Brazilian twins rather than using subs, also Gazza admitting the reason he signed for Spurs was a £120k backhander to his Dad. Everyone seems to think that football was whiter than white back in the day.

Alan Sugar found a huge pile of cash at WHL. Venables told him quite casually it was to grease transfers.

 

[KS55]

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.

:)

City refused to answer PL’s questions on future plans, I believe.

 

[Centurions]

City refused to answer PL’s questions on future plans, I believe.

Is that true? Gobsmacking if so that they'd actually expect us to tell them.

 

[KS55]

Is that true? Gobsmacking if so that they'd actually expect us to tell them.

It was reported like that but the club made no comment.

 

[WRicko]

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.

Do not agree Fordham was more like Barcelona pulling leavers we sold image rights for an up front large lump sum to avoid loses paid more (more tax) in exchange for no or less income in future as they where in the hands of an outside company

 

[WRicko]

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 do not agree Seems the Fordham scheme was more like Barcelona pulling leavers. Us selling image rights for an up front fee large lump sum to lower losses (more tax) in exchange for lower income in future periods when we had lower Losses anyway and less need for the income

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I do not agree Seems the Fordham scheme was more like Barcelona pulling leavers. Us selling image rights for an up front fee large lump sum to lower losses (more tax) in exchange for lower income in future periods when we had lower Losses anyway and less need for the income

You can say that again.

 

[halfcenturyup]

City refused to answer PL’s questions on future plans, I believe.

All clubs supply forecast information every six months, I think.