Because they haven'tI still think the PL have picked a strange hill to make a stand on here.
Because they haven'tI still think the PL have picked a strange hill to make a stand on here.
My view is that all PL clubs should be companies, partnerships, charities, or trusts registered in the UK. Domiciling in a tax haven is just an attempt to gain financial advantage.
Why? Do you think the PL have a strong case to support Etihad being any or all of:Because they haven't
No corporation or capital gains taxes.?What tax advantage do you think it gets them?
This is a serious question. I am a tax professional, and I don't think there is one for the clubs who have done this. It's a popular misconception.
It would take a long time to explain, but basically no:No corporation or capital gains taxes.?
They definately don't have any more shite than what UEFA spat out. Just a downright rehash.Why? Do you think the PL have a strong case to support Etihad being any or all of:
I'm pretty certain you've discounted all these possibilities in your previous posts and have said that the PL are unlikely to be able to prove these particular charges.
- a related party,
- not FMV,
- disguised equity investment?
You've made the point that, via disclosure, the PL will have access to far more documents than CAS were presented with. But that doesn't necessarily mean their evidence is any stronger than UEFA's. There's just more of it and it's virtually inconceivable that everyone lied through their teeth at CAS when presenting evidence on our behalf about the Etihad sponsorship. It could be that the PL are simply going to go down the same route as UEFA over Etihad, hopefully with the same outcome.
Of course we are assuming Etihad is at the core of the first group of charges but we may be wrong, and they may be going after Etisalat or other AD-based sponsorships, which weren't tested at CAS.
The fundamental difference we have over this whole case is the PL's motivation. I'm a cynic about that, along with others, believing that this is part of a coordinated attack on us by other clubs, and that proving the charges isn't necessarily the overall objective. You believe the PL is acting independently of some of its members and has brought this case purely on the strength of the evidence they have. I don't think our chairman shares your view, and club officials I've spoken to certainly don't.
We'll hopefully know one way or the other in the next 2-3 months.
Not guiltyOr one of the OSC branches.
It's the culmination of the joint project started without doubt by David Gill, that's why he moved into UEFA to ensure the implementation, what we'll never know is why Pinto targeted us, ie was he paid directly or motivated indirectly by the UEFA charges. This was backed up by PL pressure applied by the cartel and is as clear as day when you read the letter from 2012...Why? Do you think the PL have a strong case to support Etihad being any or all of:
I'm pretty certain you've discounted all these possibilities in your previous posts and have said that the PL are unlikely to be able to prove these particular charges.
- a related party,
- not FMV,
- disguised equity investment?
You've made the point that, via disclosure, the PL will have access to far more documents than CAS were presented with. But that doesn't necessarily mean their evidence is any stronger than UEFA's. There's just more of it and it's virtually inconceivable that everyone lied through their teeth at CAS when presenting evidence on our behalf about the Etihad sponsorship. It could be that the PL are simply going to go down the same route as UEFA over Etihad, hopefully with the same outcome.
Of course we are assuming Etihad is at the core of the first group of charges but we may be wrong, and they may be going after Etisalat or other AD-based sponsorships, which weren't tested at CAS.
The fundamental difference we have over this whole case is the PL's motivation. I'm a cynic about that, along with others, believing that this is part of a coordinated attack on us by other clubs, and that proving the charges isn't necessarily the overall objective. You believe the PL is acting independently of some of its members and has brought this case purely on the strength of the evidence they have. I don't think our chairman shares your view, and club officials I've spoken to certainly don't.
We'll hopefully know one way or the other in the next 2-3 months.
Wankers!It's the culmination of the joint project started without doubt by David Gill, that's why he moved into UEFA to ensure the implementation, what we'll never know is why Pinto targeted us, ie was he paid directly or motivated indirectly by the UEFA charges. This was backed up by PL pressure applied by the cartel and is as clear as day when you read the letter from 2012...
View attachment 141856