- Joined
- Mar 1, 2023
- Messages
- 401
Simon Jordan (on TalkSport) quite rightly laying into Shitty and their owners this morning. He'd like to see them expelled from the league but obv can't see it happening.
I would be fine with that personally. Not taking away trophies means you are saying you still won even though you cheated.Personally i don't think the trophies would be awarded to anyone retrospectively. The Italian FA didn't when they relegated Juve, they just scratched those years from the records instead.
I'd love it if they kept them as winners but with a big fat asterisk next to it. Would be even better than giving the title to the runner up.I would be fine with that personally. Not taking away trophies means you are saying you still won even though you cheated.
I hope they get the Chris Benoit treatmentI'd love it if they kept them as winners but with a big fat asterisk next to it. Would be even better than giving the title to the runner up.
I'd love it if they kept them as winners but with a big fat asterisk next to it. Would be even better than giving the title to the runner up.
Yes however the part that people are missing he is being paid in the UAE for work in the UAE, it was mentioned that a lot of city recruits would be asked to do 3 or 4 days ambassadors work in the contract with a separate contract for the players manager self employed company, so if they earned money in the US for 3 or 4 days work they would have to pay US tax on the payment which would normally be paid into a us bank account, he would only be liable for UK tax if the money was paid from a US company into a UK bank account.If you are domiciled in the UK you have to pay tax on global income, wherever it accrues. You can deduct foreign tax expenses in cases where there's a treaty to avoid double taxation.
It doesn't matter where your bank account is. It makes it harder to establish the taxable income, sure, but if it materialises somehow e.g. via Panama Papers or similar, you are up the creek as you would have lied in your tax return.
You can make the case that you are NOT domiciled in the UK but elsewhere, have no intention to stay, etc. In that case you get taxed on the greater of income received in the UK (i.e. paid into a UK bank account) or the share of global income corresponding to days you spent in the UK.
However, non-domiciled status can only be claimed for three years and I'd guess most players (maybe not managers) have contracts that run for longer than that so they probably dismiss the non-dom argument outright.
1-0 to the Premier League apparently
No, if you are domiciled in the UK and go for 10 days to the UAE to do work in the UAE and get paid in the UAE you still have to declare that income and pay tax on it. If the UAE doesn't tax you that makes it even easier and far less protracted.Yes however the part that people are missing he is being paid in the UAE for work in the UAE, it was mentioned that a lot of city recruits would be asked to do 3 or 4 days ambassadors work in the contract with a separate contract for the players manager self employed company, so if they earned money in the US for 3 or 4 days work they would have to pay US tax on the payment which would normally be paid into a us bank account, he would only be liable for UK tax if the money was paid from a US company into a UK bank account.
Since there is no income tax in the Middle East and some players/managers like Manchini would 100% been shown how to set up a UAE bank account to facilitate these payments, providing he has proof that he attended the country to work, there is very little HMRC or the PL can do even though it’s clearly wrong.
It’s not a far fetched stretch to think that City during their early years made alternative and additional payments to circumnavigate FFP rules at the time, if and it’s a big if, because as yet no one has come forward with any proof, City said to Mancini that we can only pay you £6m yearly salary for 4 years in the UK to be complicit in PL rules and UK tax law but to make your salary up to the £10m that you want we will create a secondary ambassadorial contract and pay you in the UAE tax free a further equivalent to £4m and we’ll make sure that all the photo shoots and pre season tours are conveniently located in Abu Dhabi prior to the season start, I very much doubt the current Uk government, especially with how much they rely on the Middle East would ask HMRC to go after non UK residents for incomes that may or may not have been earned In foreign countries?
Its a joke.
I actually prefer Liverpool winning the league next year, if the other alternative is City. I hate City extra much for making me feel that way.
@antohan @Woziak
Not sure if this explains what either of you are discussing. There does appear to be language that keeps some income off UK tax rules. Also, the article mentions Haaland earned £865k per week salary this past season.
https://www.withersworldwide.com/en-gb/insight/read/blowing-the-whistle-on-the-‘non-dom’-regime-a-case-study
Again, you can believe your records aren't actually broken, though they actually are, and no, they won't actully be punished either.
But hey, better than having "annoying" Arsenal-fans winning a trophy or two, right?
Jeez, the amount of cope on this forum is unreal.
Been saying this for years. At least the scousers have a genuine football club. You can respect them.
I'd support Spurs...safe to say for me because that choice doesn't come into play, but any rival goes ahead of cheats.Been saying this for years. At least the scousers have a genuine football club. You can respect them.
That's what I've always appreciated about Liverpool - though the rivalry is fierce, there has always been grudging respect between the two clubs, as each recognizes the other as being a genuinely big club.
Though I don't like Klopp for obvious reasons (and I'm bloody glad he's finally gone) there was always respect there for what he achieved with that Liverpool team, and fair play to them, they won the League and CL fair and square.
With Guardiola and City there's no respect as it's all obtained illegally. They can't really expect us to believe that they only paid 51 million for Haaland. They're so corrupt it's not funny.
A lot of the "fans" that follow City are the type of people who use aimbot in multiplayer video games, and then mock the other players for losing. Just shit humans in general.
That’s exactly why I don’t want them winning as much as a swimming certificate. It hurts more.Been saying this for years. At least the scousers have a genuine football club. You can respect them.
Not sure why people keep bringing up the Haaland transfer. The structure of the deal is well known and it was also well known when he first joined Dortmund. Dortmund agreed to a contract where they would get him for a certain amount of years until his release clause kicked in, where they would then get a less than 50% of the total «transfer fee», where the rest of the transfer fee is agent fees to Raiolas company and Haalands father. In reality the fee was over £110mill. Haaland&Co wanted an agent that would bring in as much money as possible and Raiola was well known for doing exactly that. Every contract extension, every transfer, Raiolas company and Haalands father will bank millions.
People keep bringing up the Haaland transfer because despite the player being hugely in demand and seemingly available for a bargain fee. There was no scramble for his signature. If it was such a cut price deal why didn't we hear about all the teams that were lined up to sign him. City signed him pretty much on the quiet. Most of us think that the situation just like City's declared finances, doesn't quite add up.
People keep bringing up the Haaland transfer because despite the player being hugely in demand and seemingly available for a bargain fee. There was no scramble for his signature. If it was such a cut price deal why didn't we hear about all the teams that were lined up to sign him. City signed him pretty much on the quiet. Most of us think that the situation just like City's declared finances, doesn't quite add up.
The Haaland deal cost at least £260 million in total.
£51 million fee.
£40 million to his agent.
£30 million to his dad.
£140 million over five years of his contract.
That's just what we know of. Some reports have his contract closer to £230 million over five years!
This is going nowhere and neither are Abu Dhabi's city project.
This is going nowhere and neither are Abu Dhabi's city project.
The Haaland deal cost at least £260 million in total.
£51 million fee.
£40 million to his agent.
£30 million to his dad.
£140 million over five years of his contract.
That's just what we know of. Some reports have his contract closer to £230 million over five years!
It's like that scene in The Big Short where they're explaining how the stock market went to shitYou wonder how on earth it's legal for a fee to go to 3 different parties like that.
The Haaland deal cost at least £260 million in total.
£51 million fee.
£40 million to his agent.
£30 million to his dad.
£140 million over five years of his contract.
That's just what we know of. Some reports have his contract closer to £230 million over five years!
I would rather the titles to be stripped and leave a void there with an asterisk saying title holder stripped due to serious fraudulent & violation of rules. This will be a reminder to all future generation of their dirty past.
If it is given to the 2nd place team, it won't have the impact and doesn't really benefit the other teams at all.
But this isn’t exclusive to City. Element of throwing stones from glasshouses here. Most of football, particularly at the top is full or corruption and unethical practice, and has been for years.
Does this mean that they won't be on the books of the club?The legal fees are will be borne by the owners.
The result of the court case will be fun.
Does this mean that they won't be on the books of the club?
Thanks very much. Feels like something that should have to be accounted for in the accounting for the club, but I can't say I am surprised.Yes.
Of course it should, the fact that it’s their owners paying and not the club is literally the entire point of the first lawsuit! It’s basically rubbing salt in the woundThanks very much. Feels like something that should have to be accounted for in the accounting for the club, but I can't say I am surprised.