PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

cleavers said:
Noting the date on the Twitter, but wasn't this actually when Cleverly was foreign minister ?
Click to expand...
It was actually the Tories who became concerned, as they were battling to attract inward investment into the UK, but the PL were fuckin things up with their witch hunt against City.

The first shot across the PL's bows was the proposal for IREF. Politicians, finance & the legal profession know the basic premise of FFP, PSR & APT are anti-competitive, & if replicated across all industry sectors, UK & EU economies would collapse.

In no other business sector is an owner barred from investing how they see fit into their business. It's the most basic competition foundation of a free market capitalist system.

UEFA & the PL have royally fucked up & are in serious danger of killing the goose that laid the golden eggs in their pursuit of Manchester City. This is why they fear the law courts, because if a club argues what's good for football should be applied across all industries, FFP, PSR & APT would be dead in an instant.

There's a gargantuan difference between regulation to protect the consumer & environment, & a blatant protectionist racket to preserve the hegemony of Europe's elite teams who fear competition from clubs lower down the food chain.

The crazy & sad thing is that the PL & UEFA through their media shills have managed to convince the fans of those clubs who could potentially be affected (Newcastle etc), that these rules were in the best interest of football. They've used the innate tribalism of football fans to justify these unlawful, unfair & unreasonable anti-competitive rules.
 
Roy paul brother said:
From Dailey Mail Comments Section.
6 hours ago
In Australia, private schools receive exactly the same government funding as a state school, on the basis that the parents have already paid tax, so the school should receive that money irrespective of its funding model. The private school then decides what top up fees to charge the parents. In some cases this is very little, generally to cover extracurricular activities and sports. Which means that decent private schools are in the reach of far more people, making the average private school much less elitist. It's a pity that Labour didn't do this because it would have removed significant pressure from the state system, improved choice and ensured opportunities for children from less affluent families. But of course this isn't about opportunity and positive outcomes. This is about leftist ideology and class war. And it's so obviously wrong and doomed to implode.Can someone tell me what inheritance tax is we don’t know what that is in Australia.
Click to expand...
We’re a little off topic here but worth responding. This is not the case.

All schools receive an element of Government funding. However they are all different and linked to factors including socioeconomic. In terms of Government funding State schools receive the most, independent schools mid and Private schools the least. On the whole, private Schools would receive significantly less than state schools (per student basis). The “elitist” private Schools you mention are circa $30-35k per year per student. That being said, independent and private schools are good for the overall system in that they do take a burden off the Government purse, as they’re not solely funded by the Government and they receive less funding per student.

While there is no inheritance tax (yet) in Australia, there are nuances with regards to superannuation (non dependents pay 15% on inherited Superannuation). There are ways this could be managed so as not to incur this 15%.

On another note, pensions in Australia are means tested. Depending on your Superannuation balance determines if you get a full, part or no pension. Unlike the UK not everyone receives a (full) pension:
 
Roy paul brother said:
From Dailey Mail Comments Section.
6 hours ago
In Australia, private schools receive exactly the same government funding as a state school, on the basis that the parents have already paid tax, so the school should receive that money irrespective of its funding model. The private school then decides what top up fees to charge the parents. In some cases this is very little, generally to cover extracurricular activities and sports. Which means that decent private schools are in the reach of far more people, making the average private school much less elitist. It's a pity that Labour didn't do this because it would have removed significant pressure from the state system, improved choice and ensured opportunities for children from less affluent families. But of course this isn't about opportunity and positive outcomes. This is about leftist ideology and class war. And it's so obviously wrong and doomed to implode.Can someone tell me what inheritance tax is we don’t know what that is in Australia.
Click to expand...
We’re a little off topic here but worth responding. This is not the case.

All schools receive an element of Government funding. However what they receive is all different. In terms of Government funding State schools receive the most, independent schools mid and Private schools the least. On the whole, private Schools would receive significantly less than state schools (per student basis). The “elitist” private Schools you mention are circa $30-35k that the parent pays per year for tuition per student. That’s a fair chunk of change. Value for money would be the mid tier independent schools (Christian/Catholic) as generally they’re not the established/elite and proportionally would receive a decent wedge of Government funding plus supplemental through fees which would be significantly less than the private schools and more attainable to more. That being said, the premise of both independent and private schools is good in that they do take a burden off the Government purse, as they’re not solely funded by the Government and they receive less funding per student.

There is no inheritance tax (yet) in Australia. But there are nuances with regards to superannuation (non dependents pay 15% on inherited Superannuation). Again, there are ways this could be managed so as not to incur this 15%

On another note, pensions in Australia are means tested. Depending on your Superannuation balance determines if you get a full, part or no pension. Unlike the UK where all are entitled to a pension.
 
Newman Noggs said:
It also, artfully avoids mentioning exactly who was asked what, thus leaving it open for people to infer that the government and foreign office were asking for updates from the Commission itself. No one needed to "insist" that the IC process is independent, there is nothing whatsoever in the emails that remotely suggests that it isn't, although that is clearly what Ziegler wants his readers to infer.
Click to expand...

Nudge nudge wink wink…… dodgy Arabs
 
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
✖
  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.