PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

It’s relevant albeit loosely but thought this little snippet was interesting


Without having all the dots it wouldn’t seem likely that Newcastle have had to settle with HMRC the tx/nic/interest re payments made to agents.

The reference to Nic would suggest to me that the payments in question relate to sums paid by NUFC in relation to players own liabilities in effect making them Benefits in Kind.

If that is correct that has to mean is that NUFC have understated the sums paid to players if for no other reason that NUFC paying the tax means the initial P11D submissions re benefits in kind almost certainly will have been grossed up but by making further tax/nic payments to HMRC the original numbers will be incorrect

I believe that Man U still have a similar matter on going .
Would this fall under disguising payments? I.e. what City are being accused of.
 
Heres the latest posting from another united fanboy. Any information in this we've not seen before - he says its all new stuff from a "whistleblower". Its to do with the Toure contractual payments of which there seemed to be a sparsity of detail available particularly regarding to what the charges actually "alleged". We assume Toure was part of the allegations of "None declaration of contractual payments" although thats never been confirmed anywhere.
@slbsn



Is this posted by David Icke? Never fails to surprise me how many people on Twitter have security service levels of inside info…. Social media really has promoted some utter fuckwits to a relative level of prominence.
 
Would this fall under disguising payments? I.e. what City are charged with?
So, does this have significant PSR implications
Does make you wonder

To be fair club after club have had to settle these type of issues with HMRC but for me the fact remains that the overall cost or expense relating to a transaction has been/ was understated
 
I think it might be a good time (it always is!) to say again (as I and others said repeatedly in the months leading up to the CAS hearing) that I trust those running our club to run our club better than any other and to ensure that no rules at all are broken in doing so. Furthermore I trust no-one as much as Lord Pannick to present our case as cogently, compellingly and convincingly as is possible so that we read again a judgement which stresses that our accusers "brought no evidence" to support their case. How the press and the fans of "other" clubs greet such an outcome is of no interest at all and they can employ themselves in private to find a place where they can store the judgement. I think we can suggest somewhere dark where the sunlight will never fade it.
 
My kingdom for one media outlet/personality to have the bollocks to ask what happens if we're innocent
I’m relatively cynical about the media, but still astonished by this.

That hardly anyone is asking the question about the implication if we are cleared. It’s genuinely nuts that virtually no-one is.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.