PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
The guy is a fruitcake. Don't bother reading it
Click to expand...
...I wish I'd read your recommendation before clicking on the link. I had no idea that the random musings of a complete moron could be so boring. He should really be charged with attempted murder for trying to bore people to death.
 
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...
You can stop being confused now, it's Tony Attwood. Enough said surely?
 
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...
It's pure Dunning–Kruger -- were they one of our centre-back pairings in the 00s, my memeory is going? -- from an articulate enough bloke who thinks he's stumbled across some big conspiracy because a transfer website doesn't make sense to him.
 
MillisleBlue said:
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.
Click to expand...
We will get a fair hearing (it is NOT a trial) because the commission will be chaired by a KC and include, presumably, at least one accountant. They will judge the charges on the basis of the evidence put before them and not on the basis of articles by Arsenal supporters or reports in the Daily Mail. or any PR department and their media whores. I remind you of David Conn's assertion that City would lose their appeal to CAS because CAS would never embarrass a governing body of any sport - and he added that UEFA were a very respected body: CAS found that UEFA had no evidence at all for the charges. This did not go down at all well with our enemies' PR departments and their media whores. If the PL's independent commission proves rather less than independent and produces a perverse judgement the club will have a clear right of appeal to the courts, which will pronounce on the merits of the appeal.
 
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 article is not by any old gooner; it is by Tony Atwood. Atwood is well known for nonsensical finance articles, although he has been relatively quiet recently. Judging by the number of times he claimed not to be saying we were cheating, I suggest someone has had a word about previous stuff he has written.
His best one was that City were going bust because all our income came from Etihad Airways who were making big losses at the time.
Take no notice of this arse.
 
it’s not as if he has any evidence of wrong doing or that it wouldn’t apply to any other club we are not the only club that do add ons we might do it more than most I don’t know but that just good business sense surely
 
projectriver said:
I was bored and intrigued so had a look at this Atwood fella. To the extent that I could make out what he was actually alleging, it’s complete nonsense.
Click to expand...
Seems he thinks we're obviously not going to be clean with all deals and hiding money somewhere in the addons. Nonsense.
 
Brendan110_0 said:
Seems he thinks we're obviously not going to be clean with all deals and hiding money somewhere in the addons. Nonsense.
Click to expand...
I've read his ramblings before and damned if I'm going to revisit the looney tunes but how does he think we're using add-ons to get around anything? Especially given everybody else uses add-ons?
 
Centurions said:
I've read his ramblings before and damned if I'm going to revisit the looney tunes but how does he think we're using add-ons to get around anything? Especially given everybody else uses add-ons?
Click to expand...

Let me help you out with a couple of quotes.

On add-ons:
"Let’s imagine: in 2021/22 Wilberforce Wanderers sell player X for £20m plus add ons depending on performance. Mr X does very well and so his add-on value rises dramatically. In 2023/4 the club with the player decide to cash in and sell him for £100m. It’s a good deal. Wilberforce Wanderers get a load of extra cash spread over five years and use it (including money not yet received) to pay off some of the debts and buy some new players. But then two years later the Revenue want a load of that money as taxation on the profitable sale of X. Wilberforce go back to the club they sold to, and say, “could you find any way to adjust your accounts…”

On sell-ons:
"But in football there is a big argument going on as to how the money from sell-on deals is accounted. Does it come into the tax year when the sale takes place or is it added back into the year when the contract is signed? And if they don’t have it…?"

I hope that helps.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Let me help you out with a couple of quotes.

On add-ons:
"Let’s imagine: in 2021/22 Wilberforce Wanderers sell player X for £20m plus add ons depending on performance. Mr X does very well and so his add-on value rises dramatically. In 2023/4 the club with the player decide to cash in and sell him for £100m. It’s a good deal. Wilberforce Wanderers get a load of extra cash spread over five years and use it (including money not yet received) to pay off some of the debts and buy some new players. But then two years later the Revenue want a load of that money as taxation on the profitable sale of X. Wilberforce go back to the club they sold to, and say, “could you find any way to adjust your accounts…”

On sell-ons:
"But in football there is a big argument going on as to how the money from sell-on deals is accounted. Does it come into the tax year when the sale takes place or is it added back into the year when the contract is signed? And if they don’t have it…?"

I hope that helps.
Click to expand...
thanks for that. It's helped convince me he doesn't really know what he's talking about !
 
halfcenturyup said:
Let me help you out with a couple of quotes.

On add-ons:
"Let’s imagine: in 2021/22 Wilberforce Wanderers sell player X for £20m plus add ons depending on performance. Mr X does very well and so his add-on value rises dramatically. In 2023/4 the club with the player decide to cash in and sell him for £100m. It’s a good deal. Wilberforce Wanderers get a load of extra cash spread over five years and use it (including money not yet received) to pay off some of the debts and buy some new players. But then two years later the Revenue want a load of that money as taxation on the profitable sale of X. Wilberforce go back to the club they sold to, and say, “could you find any way to adjust your accounts…”

On sell-ons:
"But in football there is a big argument going on as to how the money from sell-on deals is accounted. Does it come into the tax year when the sale takes place or is it added back into the year when the contract is signed? And if they don’t have it…?"

I hope that helps.
Click to expand...
Cheers, just his usual waffle then that peters out after him forgetting what he was talking about.

I presume this "in football there is a big argument going on as to how the money from sell-on deals is accounted" is purely in his own little head then as I can't recall that ever coming up before.
 
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