oh dear! pl charges

[Dimples]

Simon Jordan either has City living in his head or Qatar put him on the payroll during the WC (useful mouthpiece if they buy MU or Liverpool)?

Another rant today, an attack on the club and Pep. Openly said he thinks City are guilty (who needs a hearing?). Zero balance in his rant.

I hope City are tracking this stuff. The old saying of, you find out who your friends are when you are in trouble, comes to mind. When this is over, the people who gave an unbiased and balanced view get access to the club, the likes of Jordan get a solicitors letter.

[salford city]

All good and valid poonts re private company and its rules. We will be found guiltily of that we should all be in no doubt. The PL have been backed into a corner by the yank backed cartel clubs and must be seen to see this through. The issue with the accounts will be fun, we obviously present them through our accountants who have to abide by their own industry standards and are subject to HMRC re ie however in the case of HMRC, i believe that there are also time constraints- used to be HMRC could go back 7 years whilst an individual or company could query HMRC decisions and rulings over 6 years from the current financial year. Long way of me saying we will already be preparing our appeal but don't lose sight of that £10bn investment in the UK by Abu Dhabi because if that is in jeopardy, the PL will be under pressure from the government and will quickly move to protect that and look to regulate the PL as a result - a process that is already underway with the white paper due at the end of this month

[patrickblue]

The UAE investment will play a big part in this I believe. Private boy's club or not, pressure will be coming from the top to ensure that the people who run the UAE are not branded a bunch of crooks.

[carl_feedthegoat]

We will be found 'guilty' of something, that's for sure - there is no way on earth that the PL will go away from this with no result whatsoever.
I also doubt we will be found guilty of nothing other than a trumped up charge , similar to the one in Europe, so that the PL retains some form of fucking 'credibility'.

[Bluemoon4610]

We will be found 'guilty' of something, that's for sure - there is no way on earth that the PL will go away from this with no result whatsoever.
I also doubt we will be found guilty of nothing other than a trumped up charge , similar to the one in Europe, so that the PL retains some form of fucking 'credibility'.

Fully agree with that sentiment. Think that's why the pL have added the charges of "failing to co-operate" fully, just as UEFA did. It gives them a "get out" win as it's their word against ours as to how much co-operation there was - and it's them who decide if it was sufficient!

[johnny crossan]

It's just obscene - american hedgies using their own corruptly introduced 'rules' to take us out - 'survival of the fattest'

[Dimples]

The UAE investment will play a big part in this I believe. Private boy's club or not, pressure will be coming from the top to ensure that the people who run the UAE are not branded a bunch of crooks.

Spot on - I think so to, simply because that is the way the world works.

The UAE is an extremely wealthy and influential country spending billions of $$$s on foreign investment.
Mansour is the UAE deputy prime minister and a member of the Abu Dhabi ruling family (his brother is president of the UAE).
Mubarak is a senior government official for Abu Dhabi.
The PL runs the top tier of English football.
The PL is a minnow in comparison to the UAE in terms of influence, finance, etc...

The UAE are investing £10B in the UK and will allow the PL to brand their deputy prime minister a crook - really?
With CAS City got fined for 'failure to cooperate', whatever that means. Sounds pretty harmless.
Probably more of the same with the PL 'charges'.

The more I think about the PL charges and the way they were issued, the less sense it makes.
The narrative since the takeover has been 'State owned, Sports washing, limitless financial resources'.
If that is true, then the PL feel big and bold enough to legally challenge a State, with limitless financial resources, who are investing £10B in the UK - really?
And the PL charges are led by USA owned clubs, driven by profit, therefore minimal investment and all profits go overseas. Opposite to City.

With this move the PL have politicized their league. They have opened up a hornets nest. But they must have seen this coming?

In the real world the big dog wins. By doing this the PL have let in much bigger dogs than them. Dogs they cannot defeat imo.
The PL bringing these charges makes no sense to me.

[Dimples]

I am certain now that the reason for the PL going after us is because of the Qatar bid for MU. The PL are coverd by Qatar (see my last post) who have no doubt been flashing the brown envelopes.
It makes perfect sense now.
RIP top flight English football.

[ruralblue]

FB_IMG_1676828012748.jpg

Could just be shit, but..... well if its true!

[Harry Dowd scored]

FB_IMG_1676828012748.jpg

Could just be shit, but..... well if its true!

Think that’s what I saw on Twitter last week.

[Mase]

FB_IMG_1676828012748.jpg

Could just be shit, but..... well if its true!

Hope that’s true, it would be brilliant.

Wonder who the team is that’s trying to distance themselves from the other 8.

[ruralblue]

FB_IMG_1676828012748.jpg

Could just be shit, but..... well if its true!

Hope that’s true, it would be brilliant.

Wonder who the team is that’s trying to distance themselves from the other 8.

Burnely. Who's knows it might just be a load of shit I read of face ache

[ruralblue]

Also with regards the VAR recording, perhaps a player who was clearly offside who allowed the ball to play on to the goal scorer which was clearly interfering in the goal.

[gmercer1]

From what I’ve read it was Lee Mason to Stuart Atwell and it was “ you need to give that goal”

[Nick]

Whixh goal / game??

[gmercer1]

Whixh goal / game??

Not heard anything on they yet.
If it’s true why the fuck don’t we just leak it NOW!!

[Beefymcfc]

Simon Jordan either has City living in his head or Qatar put him on the payroll during the WC (useful mouthpiece if they buy MU or Liverpool)?

Another rant today, an attack on the club and Pep. Openly said he thinks City are guilty (who needs a hearing?). Zero balance in his rant.

I hope City are tracking this stuff. The old saying of, you find out who your friends are when you are in trouble, comes to mind. When this is over, the people who gave an unbiased and balanced view get access to the club, the likes of Jordan get a solicitors letter.

Is this the same Simon Jordan who openly calls us Frankenstein and then was invited to a private audience with members of the Qatari royal house?

Never guessed that he could be a paid shill.

*Rolls eyes*

[Im_Spartacus]

No Mase mate, they are not saying that.
They have mentioned a rule number and a season and we have deduced that it alludes to Mancini.

It is believed to allude to a contract between Mancini and the Al Jazeera club.
What we think the Prem is accusing us of is that the Al Jazeera fee was paid by City as a shadow wage.

Even if City did pay him, the tax bill would be the responsibilty of Mancini to pay, not City. Nowt to do with City.
Mancini has every right with City's permission to make any deals with anyone he likes.
If the accusation were true. City would have failed to account for it and it would have skewed City's accounting.
Also note that FFP wasn't in force then anyway.

I get what you’re saying mate.

The employer, not employee, is responsible for deducting the tax - so it would be City who deduct tax for Mancini, who I’m assuming was PAYE. If City have been paying Mancini through a separate entity then it’s City that would also be done for tax evasion. Plus it’s their responsibility to pay ENI as well. If Mancini was earning more, then it would be more ENI that would need to be paid.

A UK entity has no mechanism to deduct tax for money earned overseas via PAYE even if earned via a related entity. Overseas earnings would always be accounted for as part of Mancini's tax return.

[Im_Spartacus]

Harry,
I fully understand what you are saying mate but we are not as yet being investigated by the HMRC.
If it were the HMRC who were accusing us, then this would be investigated by them, refered to the CPS and tried by a court of law.
and your point obviously stands.

As it is, we are being investigated by a private institution and they do not have the powers to enforce English Law, they could if they wished, take their evidence to the HMRC but as a private institution, they can only enforce their own rules as they have been agreed by the Premier League members.

The Premier League have no right to judge and prosecute the legality of City's accounting, they are not part of the judicial system.

I agree with you John, but the point I was trying to make was, if the panel find us guilty our accounts will not be valid, therefore at that point HMRC could get involved and the CPS, they don’t have to be referred they can initiate investigation if there is probable cause.

Statutory accounts are a completely different thing to accounts prepared to fulfil a membership like the Premier League which requires completely different accounting rules to be applied. Just because the latter was cooked, doesn't automatically mean the former was.

[zuricity]

Harry,
I fully understand what you are saying mate but we are not as yet being investigated by the HMRC.
If it were the HMRC who were accusing us, then this would be investigated by them, refered to the CPS and tried by a court of law.
and your point obviously stands.

As it is, we are being investigated by a private institution and they do not have the powers to enforce English Law, they could if they wished, take their evidence to the HMRC but as a private institution, they can only enforce their own rules as they have been agreed by the Premier League members.

The Premier League have no right to judge and prosecute the legality of City's accounting, they are not part of the judicial system.

I agree with you John, but the point I was trying to make was, if the panel find us guilty our accounts will not be valid, therefore at that point HMRC could get involved and the CPS, they don’t have to be referred they can initiate investigation if there is probable cause.

Statutory accounts are a completely different thing to accounts prepared to fulfil a membership like the Premier League which requires completely different accounting rules to be applied. Just because the latter was cooked, doesn't automatically mean the former was.

This is indeed correct and The Government has no objection if an owner invests more private money into the Company.

Where the Premier League made a fatal mistake with FFP is not to get operational clearance from HMRC.

They new they would never get clearance because it is prohibiting free and fair competion. At the time even the European Commision were also not asked to get involved. Going through those two bodies FFP would have died a death.