Wallsendmag Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 Homeschooling by Neesy. Mind, I had the same remembery as above and will probably forget this lesson in a few year and default back to the above. Just had a quick read up about it. Despite being registered as a Limited Company they were paying the same tax rate as a non profit organisation. They got away with this for over 20 years. They were also allowed to buy land to build a new training ground for £15m less than its market value. This was in 1998 so was a massive amount of money back then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 The original statement was the Spanish Government bailed them out, which is incorrect. I also pointed out in a further response it was related to the madrid community government that did the transaction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallsendmag Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 The original statement was the Spanish Government bailed them out, which is incorrect. I also pointed out in a further response it was related to the madrid community government that did the transaction. Well whatever they received a lot of illegal funding and the final ruling from the European Commission stated that "Spain provided State funding to help the clubs gain an unfair advantage over their rivals". Seven clubs in total benefitted from this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
St1pe Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 I’m surprised Jacobs is getting any grief or doubts from last night. He explained his position pretty clearly last night and came across very honest and factual. He spoke about how if you only argue one side of things you may get the odd exclusive but you’re not going to get the full picture and I think that explains the angle some other journos have taken. Some of the topics were pretty dry last night but if you’ve got any doubts on his validity give the full hour a listen and I bet you change your mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 I’m surprised Jacobs is getting any grief or doubts from last night. He explained his position pretty clearly last night and came across very honest and factual. He spoke about how if you only argue one side of things you may get the odd exclusive but you’re not going to get the full picture and I think that explains the angle some other journos have taken. Some of the topics were pretty dry last night but if you’ve got any doubts on his validity give the full hour a listen and I bet you change your mind. I’ve stated above the reasons why I wouldn’t take anything he says with much credit i.e. BBC ban and Chronicle shit he talked which resulted in them pulling the piece. The fact that from yesterday I’ve seen on here and through tweets that he’s suddenly thinks that he’s a legal expert; and that he also thinks the top 6 are not having an influence means I don’t need to listen to one minute of him to know that I would not change my mind on him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantail Breeze Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 Fantastic. We’ve moved onto the financing intricacies of Spanish clubs in the ever ongoing debate of our takeover Where will this go next? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallsendmag Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 I’m surprised Jacobs is getting any grief or doubts from last night. He explained his position pretty clearly last night and came across very honest and factual. He spoke about how if you only argue one side of things you may get the odd exclusive but you’re not going to get the full picture and I think that explains the angle some other journos have taken. Some of the topics were pretty dry last night but if you’ve got any doubts on his validity give the full hour a listen and I bet you change your mind. Which is of course the one thing he's been proven to be not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
St1pe Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 Disagree but I guess I’m in the wrong thread for it. Hopefully we’ll be in a much clearer situation within the next couple of months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 Back to the point about shadow directors and the O&D test, the test seems to be pretty fundamentally flawed in that regard, because whether or not someone is a shadow director can only be established retrospectively. Caveat: I'm not a lawyer, I do have a working understanding of how the law operates in relation to a completely different area of law, but this might all be completely wrong. So the O&D test requires that all directors are disclosed, including shadow directors. From what has been said by the PL and the consortium the only stumbling point is that the PL believe that the Saudi state is a shadow director of PIF and therefore would be a shadow director of the club, and so should be disclosed and subjected to the O&D test. The concept of a shadow director is defined in the Companies Act 2006 (which is referred to the the definition of directors in the PL handbook) and established in common law. To be a shadow director someone must both have the ability to control a company and act on that. Someone could own all of the shares in a company but if they don't get involved in its running they are not a shadow director. To win their side of the argument the PL would have to first demonstrate that the Saudi state is a shadow director of PIF, that is very problematic as it's a company in a country that has no legal concept of a shadow director. If they do manage to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Saudi state is a shadow director of PIF, they would then need to demonstrate that the Saudi state would be a shadow director of NUFC. How could they possibly do that beforehand? From what I understand being a shadow director actually requires someone to act with control over company, so it could only be proven retrospectively. So all PIF would need is a letter from the Saudi state stating that they have no intention to be involved in the running of NUFC (which is possibly what the letter Al-Rumayyan hand delivered said) and the PL would have no case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nbthree3 Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 Nick's got a good record going against the EFL (just hope it translates against the PL soon too!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ankles Bennett Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 Kinda only half listening but Ben jacobs saying the Saudi government injected a load of cash in to PIF to bail them out after covid started and that raised a lot of questions for the PL The Spanish Government passed legislation way back in 1990 declaring Real Madrid to be a non for profit Sporting club owned by its members and therefore exempt from tax. This is how they are able to buy the best players as they don't have to pay tax. To be fair they also afforded the same privilege to Barca, Athletic Bilbao, and Osasuna, but that was probably so they couldn't be accused of favouring Real Madrid I heard that and he was Implying that proved they weren't legally separate. A government bailout doesn't prove they are of the same entity. The Spanish government bailed out Real Madrid when they were on the verge of going bust many years ago, and I believe its not the first time they have done so, but that doesn't mean the government and Real Madrid are the same entity! No they didn't. [emoji38] They did they bought the ground for millions and gave it back to them didn’t they? I remember they received a massive amount of illegal state subsidies a good few years ago but think they were forced to pay it all back? Firstly, it was the local government that bought the land off them not the actual Spanish government. Secondly they were forced to pay some of it back by the EU in illegal state aid but not the whole transaction. Thirdly, it affected several other clubs. https://www.ft.com/content/750e14a2-3f94-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 Movement in Middle East is what we’re waiting for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikon Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 Enjoyed the silence before.. Bump.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 Nick's got a good record going against the EFL (just hope it translates against the PL soon too!) I mean, if there's one club that could fuck up his clean sheet... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pons Alias Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 I think I’m out of positivity. The forces against us seem too strong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 I think I’m out of positivity. The forces against us seem too strong. Keep the faith mate all is not lost. https://twitter.com/5yntax_Err0r/status/1358553392604467201?s=20 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 And very much this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ankles Bennett Posted February 9, 2021 Share Posted February 9, 2021 The original statement was the Spanish Government bailed them out, which is incorrect. I also pointed out in a further response it was related to the madrid community government that did the transaction. If passing legislation to allow real madrid tax breaks not afforded to most of the other La Liga clubs isn't a government bail out I dont know what is! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 I actually thought Ben Jacobs came across fairly well and his knowledge of us in the early 90s when he was a kid at Filbert Street was really good (unless he had researched it!)! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candi_Hills Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 And very much this. As everyone has pointed out in the replies, Highland Geordie didn't report anything. He just rehashed what Keith had said three weeks earlier. Potential Burnsie account. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 And very much this. As everyone has pointed out in the replies, Highland Geordie didn't report anything. He just rehashed what Keith had said three weeks earlier. Potential Burnsie account. It’s more the shields gazette content I was highlighting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jong24 Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 So we've gone from "join the dots" to "count the spots". Cheers Liam Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 Won’t be long before Bein is restored at this rate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candi_Hills Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 Just need a bit of Middle Eastern diplomacy then we're home and dry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now