PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

bluenova said:
But our owner isn't supposed to own our sponsors.

There's little logic to it, and it has been suggested that if some of these sponsorships were considered related parties City wouldn't have had any ffp problems. Once they are considered unrelated though, the sponsorship can't be funded by the owner.
Click to expand...

Well, we can agree on the little logic part. :)
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
Because it's owner investment and this is limited by the FFP regulations. This limitation appears to be prohibited by UK and European law but any attempt to challenge the limitation would be very time consuming at the very least.
Click to expand...

Is it? I thought it was just losses and (now) wages and amortisation that were controlled?

I also thought the whole premise of the PL is that if the amounts are considered "disguised equity funding" then we fail FFP on the amount of losses we would have made without the income, not on the extra amount of investment.

Or do I have that wrong?
 
lefty goldblatt said:
'e' ll park where he wants
'e' ll park where he wants
Pep Guardiola
'e' ll park where he wants
Click to expand...

Pep needs to drive something a little less conspicuous...

C_71_article_1425789_image_list_image_list_item_1_image.jpg
 
halfcenturyup said:
Is it? I thought it was just losses and (now) wages and amortisation that were controlled?

I also thought the whole premise of the PL is that if the amounts are considered "disguised equity funding" then we fail FFP on the amount of losses we would have made without the income, not on the extra amount of investment.

Or do I have that wrong?
Click to expand...
What you outline was not the case when the so called offences were committed, but it seems that the case against City is that the club falsified its accounts to inflate sponsorship income and disguise the fact that it had invested beyond the limits allowed to owners. FFP allowed unlimited income from sponsors (unless they were "related parties") but owner investment was (quite severely) limited.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
What you outline was not the case when the so called offences were committed, but it seems that the case against City is that the club falsified its accounts to inflate sponsorship income and disguise the fact that it had invested beyond the limits allowed to owners. FFP allowed unlimited income from sponsors (unless they were "related parties") but owner investment was (quite severely) limited.
Click to expand...
Really? I don't remember that, but I must say I didnt pay much attention to FFP until 2014. I thought it had always been results based. No losses over a certain limit.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Is it? I thought it was just losses and (now) wages and amortisation that were controlled?

I also thought the whole premise of the PL is that if the amounts are considered "disguised equity funding" then we fail FFP on the amount of losses we would have made without the income, not on the extra amount of investment.

Or do I have that wrong?
Click to expand...
The income and the investment are the same as the income is disguised equity investment from the owner
 
Just read an article on a Gooner website that came up on Newsnow. It's a reasonable article, and you can tell he thinks we're upto no good, but he stopped short of saying it. But his main premise was that it was all about tax on add ons and when they were due. I'm sure it's a concern, but I think we all could have a better guess based on the number of charges and it's not, at the moment, a HMRC issue.
 
Asa's left peg said:
Just read an article on a Gooner website that came up on Newsnow. It's a reasonable article, and you can tell he thinks we're upto no good, but he stopped short of saying it. But his main premise was that it was all about tax on add ons and when they were due. I'm sure it's a concern, but I think we all could have a better guess based on the number of charges and it's not, at the moment, a HMRC issue.
Click to expand...
Your bar must be considerably lower than mine if that's your definition of "reasonable" ;)
 
Asa's left peg said:
Just read an article on a Gooner website that came up on Newsnow. It's a reasonable article, and you can tell he thinks we're upto no good, but he stopped short of saying it. But his main premise was that it was all about tax on add ons and when they were due. I'm sure it's a concern, but I think we all could have a better guess based on the number of charges and it's not, at the moment, a HMRC issue.
Click to expand...
This whole saga has been heavily populated by people who think we are up to no good but who cannot produce a shred of evidence. Many of these are journalists who ought to know better. The trouble is they poison the pool and, especially where the so called independent tribunal is concerned, they start with a prejudiced view and our lawyers are almost forced to prove our innocence, rather than the burden being on the league.
 
Asa's left peg said:
Just read an article on a Gooner website that came up on Newsnow. It's a reasonable article, and you can tell he thinks we're upto no good, but he stopped short of saying it. But his main premise was that it was all about tax on add ons and when they were due. I'm sure it's a concern, but I think we all could have a better guess based on the number of charges and it's not, at the moment, a HMRC issue.
Click to expand...
Confused not see this suggested anywhere else and don’t see how there would be tax implications for add ons other than they reduce profit tax if paid. So if we had lots of add ons we would have less profit less tax but also more likely fail FFP if alleged proper journalists don’t understand FFP then I doubt some random Arsenal fan does I know I shouldn’t but I like to read what other people say about us even if it’s rubbish can you post a link so I can examine it
 
KS55 said:
This whole saga has been heavily populated by people who think we are up to no good but who cannot produce a shred of evidence. Many of these are journalists who ought to know better. The trouble is they poison the pool and, especially where the so called independent tribunal is concerned, they start with a prejudiced view and our lawyers are almost forced to prove our innocence, rather than the burden being on the league.
Click to expand...

Unless the key players have been living under a rock for the past 6 months, I don't see any chance of us getting a fair trial. Our combined enemies PR departments and their media whores have seen to that.
 
KS55 said:
This whole saga has been heavily populated by people who think we are up to no good but who cannot produce a shred of evidence. Many of these are journalists who ought to know better. The trouble is they poison the pool and, especially where the so called independent tribunal is concerned, they start with a prejudiced view and our lawyers are almost forced to prove our innocence, rather than the burden being on the league.
Click to expand...
As you say 'Independent' lol
 
WRicko said:
Confused not see this suggested anywhere else and don’t see how there would be tax implications for add ons other than they reduce profit tax if paid. So if we had lots of add ons we would have less profit less tax but also more likely fail FFP if alleged proper journalists don’t understand FFP then I doubt some random Arsenal fan does I know I shouldn’t but I like to read what other people say about us even if it’s rubbish can you post a link so I can examine it
Click to expand...

How come we got the Manchester City player values so wrong? – Untold Arsenal: Supporting the club, the manager and the team

untold-arsenal.com untold-arsenal.com
 
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