PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

BlueAnorak said:
It would be a complete laugh if we were found guilty of this - SIX clubs were fined by HMRC for incorrect tax payments (tax avoidance that were deemed near tax evasion by HMRC) as a result of their image rights deals. This includes Utd, Newcastle another Red Top and Southampton.
We weren't fined as we had continual discussions with HMRC - we closed the Fordam thing down and paid back tax without a fine - ie we came clean without an investigation.
It would be interesting to see how tax evasion by attempted legal means is less of a 'crime' with the PL than than near tax avoidance...
taxdisputes.co.uk

Man Utd and Newcastle amongst football clubs tackling HMRC tax investigations | HMRC Tax Disputes Solicitors & Barristers

After a six-year investigation into the sport, HMRC has recovered about £464 million from football players, clubs, and agents. In the last year alone, the revenue has recovered £55.6…
taxdisputes.co.uk taxdisputes.co.uk
Click to expand...
The allegations from the premier league are not about tax so I don’t see how your post makes sense
 
WRicko said:
The allegations from the premier league are not about tax so I don’t see how your post makes sense
Click to expand...
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.
 
BlueAnorak said:
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.
Click to expand...
But the PL are not trying to do City for tax dodging. They are suggesting the reverse, that City are overstating income to disguise owner subsidies, and hence busting sustainability rules.

The desparate nature of the PL claims is shown by the fact that they have to go back to the Mancini era which ended over ten years ago. Was FFP fully in operation 11-12 years ago?

It is laughable that a team that has been highly profitable for nine out of the last ten years. The exception is the lock-down year of 2019-20.

Currently three PL teams are profitable (three have not submitted reports): Brighton, City, and Bournemouth. Most of the others are losing money, especially United, Villa, and Spurs.
 
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.
 
BlueAnorak said:
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.
Click to expand...

The whole point of the Fordham arrangement was to get additional revenue into 2013 so the club wouldn't fail UEFA FFP.

I don't think any other clubs actually sold the rights to the use of their players' images in return for an up-front payment, which was the point of the arrangement for the club.

I don't know all the details of the Fordham arrangement, but I can't imagine there was anything commercially or fiscally wrong with it, with the proviso that there are some issues like the ADUG loss-underwriting which may present some issues to the PL.
 
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.