• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

PL Opposition Tidbits

Is it the same in the UK that you have to live outside the country for more than 183 to be considered non resident for tax purposes?
Broadly, but that's only for "normal" employments and the rules about the cut-off point can be a bit messy, and it will vary depending on what country you go to / come from as the UK will have treaties that set out specific rules with most "mainstream" countries (ie not usually with tax havens or dictatorships).
Footballers can be taxed even if they're only in a country (to play football) for a day, but obviously they only pay tax on what they earn that day. However some countries, step forward the enlightened Ireland, aren't arsed as they figure the wider economic benefits of having high-profile stars stage events in Ireland outweigh the hassle and cost of taxing them.
 
Tax doesn’t work like that for footballers. If he’s playing in the UK, his salary is taxed here, no matter who pays it.
It doesn't work like that for anyone ! Are you resident here for a day over 6 months? Are you employed here at all ? The Taxman cometh !

Oh I've just noticed you're from the Wirral? Whereabouts?
 
It doesn't work like that for anyone ! Are you resident here for a day over 6 months? Are you employed here at all ? The Taxman cometh !

Oh I've just noticed you're from the Wirral? Whereabouts?
I'm in West Kirby, but originally from Aigburth. Moved over here about 12 years ago.
 
Pretty much, but they wouldn't be able to buy and loan to Newcastle in the same transfer window.
Is that true? I thought it was not uncommon to buy a player and send them out on loan immediately. Either to the selling club (like we tried to do in January with Carvalho before we got him in the summer) or to a completely different club.
 
Is that true? I thought it was not uncommon to buy a player and send them out on loan immediately. Either to the selling club (like we tried to do in January with Carvalho before we got him in the summer) or to a completely different club.
I've only seen it where the player goes back on loan to the selling club, but I might be wrong on that. Happy to be corrected.
 
I've only seen it where the player goes back on loan to the selling club, but I might be wrong on that. Happy to be corrected.

I think we did this when we signed Alou Diarra way back in the day. We signed him and then sent him on loan to a different club. Mind you, the rules have no doubt changed in 20 years and not even convinced it was when the transfer window system was in place!

I guess it has also happened with young players for work permit reasons too, but I can't think of any examples.
 
Speedy Gonzalez?

Had to google to remember his real name, Mark! We bought him outside the window but sent him back to Spain at the first opportunity (the winter window).

I’m pretty sure buying and immediately loaning is quite common. I pretty sure Chelsea do it with their satellite clubs. Yepp, quick check, Angelo Gabriel this summer.
 
Last edited:
More recently we signed Anderson Arroyo and loaned him out straight away to a Spanish team
 
And I think the same thing happened with that enormous striker we sold to Forest... whatever his name was.
 
Crikey, he was on loan A LOT!

[xtable]
{tbody}
{tr}
{th=scope:row}ears{/th}
{td}Team{/td}
{td}Apps{/td}
{td}(Gls){/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{th=scope:row}2015–2021{/th}
{td}Liverpool{/td}
{td}0{/td}
{td}(0){/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{th=scope:row}2015–2016{/th}
{td}→ FSV Frankfurt (loan){/td}
{td}13{/td}
{td}(1){/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{th=scope:row}2016–2017{/th}
{td}→ NEC (loan){/td}
{td}18{/td}
{td}(2){/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{th=scope:row}2017–2018{/th}
{td}→ Mouscron (loan){/td}
{td}27{/td}
{td}(7){/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{th=scope:row}2018–2019{/th}
{td}→ Gent (loan){/td}
{td}16{/td}
{td}(0){/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{th=scope:row}2019{/th}
{td}→ Mouscron (loan){/td}
{td}9{/td}
{td}(7){/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{th=scope:row}2019–2020{/th}
{td}→ Mainz 05 (loan){/td}
{td}12{/td}
{td}(1){/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{th=scope:row}2020–2021{/th}
{td}→ Union Berlin (loan){/td}
{td}21{/td}
{td}(5){/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{th=scope:row}2021–2022{/th}
{td}Union Berlin{/td}
{td}31{/td}
{td}(15){/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{th=scope:row}2022–{/th}
{td}Nottingham Forest{/td}
{td}37{/td}
{td}(14){/td}
{/tr}
{/tbody}
[/xtable]
 
Sure, Thiago’s gone out on loan to the medical department regularly since we signed him.
 
Since Ineos already own Nice if they go ahead with their purchase of a 25% stake in United then under UEFA rules United will have to finish higher in the PL than Nice in the L1 (currently 2nd, 6 pts ahead of 4th) to qualify for the CL or EL. If Nice finish higher then United will drop down into the Conference (even if qualifying for the CL or EL)

😀
 
Since Ineos already own Nice if they go ahead with their purchase of a 25% stake in United then under UEFA rules United will have to finish higher in the PL than Nice in the L1 (currently 2nd, 6 pts ahead of 4th) to qualify for the CL or EL. If Nice finish higher then United will drop down into the Conference (even if qualifying for the CL or EL)

😀
INEOS are buying 25% of the Glazer's stake, not 25% of United
 
For ref.

The Glazers as a family own ~68.6% split as below from Sept 2022 stats:

  • Joel 13.7%
  • Darcie 13%
  • Bryan 12.4%
  • Avram 10.3%
  • Kevin 9.9%
  • Edward 9.3%
These are all "Class B" shares which attract 10x the voting rights of the Class A shares (95% of votes)

Class A shares make up the other ~31.4% with the following large investors (5% of votes):
  • Lindsell Train Ltd
  • Eminence Capital LP
  • Ariel Investments
  • Joel M. Glazer Irrevocable Exempt Trust (yes him again!)
So depending on who individually sells the shares to INEOS, they could become the largest single owner but the Glazer family still have control (>50% of all shares, ~71% of votes)
 
Last edited:
5.0 Integrity of the Competition
  1. To ensure the integrity of the UEFA club competitions (i.e. UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League and UEFA Europa Conference League), the following criteria apply:
  2. No club participating in a UEFA club competition may, either directly or indirectly:
    • hold or deal in the securities or shares of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
    • be a member of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
    • be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition; or
    • have any power whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition.
  3. No one may simultaneously be involved, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition.
  4. No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:
    • holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;
    • having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;
    • being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or
    • being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club

It's the last one, 5.04, that looks dodgy as Radcliffe wants to have control of the football affairs at United
 
INEOS are buying 25% of the Glazer's stake, not 25% of United
Yeah whatever but the UEFA rule stands. They will need to finish higher in the PL than Nice do in P1. And that's not just his season but any season. Surely Ineos will sell, but who to?
 
Is it just me or is Pep sounding like he’s not quite so convinced that City did nothing wrong? He’s gone from insisting they did no wrong to ‘innocent until proven guilty”. And he’s talking about there being a case, and about a punishment like it is inevitable. Bring it on.

“It’s a good question,” the manager said at a press conference on Friday. “I will answer when I have the sentence [decision]. You are questioning like we have been punished. And in the moment we are innocent until guilt is proved. I know the people want it. I know, I feel it. I will wait. Wait and see it and after the sentence has been done we will come here and explain it”.
“But absolutely I will not consider my future [if] it depends on being here [Premier League] or being in League One. Absolutely. There is more chance to stay if we are in League One than if we were in the Champions League.”
Guardiola is clear that Everton’s case is different to City’s. The Merseyside club were found to overreached their allowed losses by £19.5m. One of the main accusations the treble winners have to answer is of inflating sponsorship deals.
“What people accuse us of we do not agree with,” Guardiola said. “We are going to defend [ourselves] and after the resolution is done, I will be here, like a spokesman for my club. I want to say the case for Everton, and I don’t know what happened, but only I know from the lawyers and people at my club is that they are completely different cases … I know when people are saying: ‘OK, City - why don’t they go to the Conference?’ Wait. Wait. And after what’s going to happen is going to happen.”
 
Only the lawyers and the accountants (and quite possibly not even they?) really know whether and, if so, to what extent there's been actual wrongdoing under the rules. Maybe also Guardiola's fly enough to see that a head of steam is building up behind the issue and the more that happens, the less sure they can be of the outcome going in their favour, especially with a government-appointed regulator in the offing.

Couldn't happen to a nicer club.
 
Mason Mount apparently out again (second injury this season), expected back after Xmas. Given he missed most of the second half of last season, I’d say he’s becoming a bit “Redknapp”
 
Mason Mount apparently out again (second injury this season), expected back after Xmas. Given he missed most of the second half of last season, I’d say he’s becoming a bit “Redknapp”
He's becoming a bit of a flop.

No scratch that, he is a flop.
 
Sandcastle considering requesting a loan of Kalvin Philips from City.

They are very short in midfield currently and Philips really needs games but surely City won’t help out a rival.

Last month TNT Sport suggested City would accept an initial loan as long as there was a buy commitment next summer of roughly £40m. They know it’ll be hard to cover his contracted £150k a week salary which currently runs for another 4.5 years.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom