In half those clips he looks like a Fifa keeper when the AI messes up and dives too late or gets confused by other players etc. He's really bad.
PL Opposition tidbits
- Thread starter Frogfish
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Good shout, but James could also pull off some world-class saves
Flying Pig United compares Banana to that Italian blert Massimo Taibi they had in goal many moons ago. He was just as bad, possibly even worse.
He's perfect for Arsenal
Zubidubi knows he dropped the grandmother of all ricks joining them instead of us, and is desperately trying to convince himself otherwise.
It's actually rather sad.
It's actually rather sad.
Not sure our famed Transfer dept are that good. We spent all last summer chasing this dumb ass like he was the missing jigsaw piece.He's perfect for Arsenal
Fair point
Needs its own thread, as this could be big news
They'll just hire Man.City's legal team and spin the whole thing out into bugger all over the next few years.
About time.
I don't know the details but a journo mate of mine said he'd seen some of the documents (relating to the alleged wrong-doing during the Russian's days) and he said they were pretty damning.
I think I've also mentioned before that when we signed Lazar Markovic, the delay towards the end of the process related to the FA digging into the third party ownership structure because they were convinced Chelsea / Abramovich were involved at some level, but it couldn't be proved (and the regulations just required us to dissolve the TPO arrangements, not to get to the bottom of the ultimate owners). You should expect to hear Pini Zahavi's name mentioned in dispatches to as he was involved with a lot of TPO structures.
As I understand the position on the agents' fees, the allegations are that these fees were paid by other companies in Abramovich's empire. This would mean Chelsea could be guilty of:
- False accounting for PSR (NB they have already settled with UEFA, so provided they made full disclosure there should be no further UEFA action)
- Inaccurate declarations under the agency regulations (clubs have to submit an annual return of payments made to intermediaries which would probably not have included the payments)
- Inaccurate declarations for tax purposes
The latter point could be the most problematic for them. If any element of the fees (allegedly) paid by other companies relates to services to players and has not been declared then both Chelsea and the players concerned could be guilty of tax evasion (not avoidance (which is legal, if ethically dubious) but the really naughty version with potential criminal penalties). In reality, a financial settlement is most likely, and I'd expect HMRC to seek the full amount, plus hefty penalties, from Chelsea, rather than going after individual players, just because it's easier to do that and they get their tax haul regardless.
And bearing in mind that what is alleged to have happened here constitutes fraud, they can go back up to 20 years, so it's effectively not time-barred.
I don't know the details but a journo mate of mine said he'd seen some of the documents (relating to the alleged wrong-doing during the Russian's days) and he said they were pretty damning.
I think I've also mentioned before that when we signed Lazar Markovic, the delay towards the end of the process related to the FA digging into the third party ownership structure because they were convinced Chelsea / Abramovich were involved at some level, but it couldn't be proved (and the regulations just required us to dissolve the TPO arrangements, not to get to the bottom of the ultimate owners). You should expect to hear Pini Zahavi's name mentioned in dispatches to as he was involved with a lot of TPO structures.
As I understand the position on the agents' fees, the allegations are that these fees were paid by other companies in Abramovich's empire. This would mean Chelsea could be guilty of:
- False accounting for PSR (NB they have already settled with UEFA, so provided they made full disclosure there should be no further UEFA action)
- Inaccurate declarations under the agency regulations (clubs have to submit an annual return of payments made to intermediaries which would probably not have included the payments)
- Inaccurate declarations for tax purposes
The latter point could be the most problematic for them. If any element of the fees (allegedly) paid by other companies relates to services to players and has not been declared then both Chelsea and the players concerned could be guilty of tax evasion (not avoidance (which is legal, if ethically dubious) but the really naughty version with potential criminal penalties). In reality, a financial settlement is most likely, and I'd expect HMRC to seek the full amount, plus hefty penalties, from Chelsea, rather than going after individual players, just because it's easier to do that and they get their tax haul regardless.
And bearing in mind that what is alleged to have happened here constitutes fraud, they can go back up to 20 years, so it's effectively not time-barred.
I’d say the club World Cup is heaving a greater impact than the second dog shagger.
Chelsea statement:
"During a thorough due diligence process prior to completion of the purchase, the ownership group became aware of potentially incomplete financial reporting concerning historical transactions and other potential breaches of FA rules. Immediately upon the completion of the purchase, the club self-reported these matters to all relevant regulators, including the FA. The club has demonstrated unprecedented transparency during this process, including by giving comprehensive access to the club's files and historical data."
So firstly, most of this has been said before and fair play to them for reporting it (although I think it had already leaked and the FA knew, but they've still been transparent when they could have obfuscated like City have done).
But secondly, what this makes clear is that they knew about this BEFORE they bought the club, which means they would have done a piece of work to assess the level of exposure (financially, and possibly in terms of sporting sanctions too). If they start arguing that it's unfair that they are penalised financially for something the current owners didn't do then that's for the birds - they would have knocked the liability off the price they bid for the club. In a normal deal, the agreements would have been structured so that they'd be able to claim against the sellers for this sort of liability. And they'd have know there'd be a risk of sporting sanctions too.
But this will need to go to an independent panel for determination of suitable penalties. That panel should judge these offences in isolation, whereas the Premier League would likely look at all the other piss-taking they've done of late (hotels, women's team) and throw the book at them. For that reason, I'd expect the Premier League to go in hard to make their case and seek the harshest of penalties, but ultimately I suspect the independent panel may go (relatively) easy on them.
"During a thorough due diligence process prior to completion of the purchase, the ownership group became aware of potentially incomplete financial reporting concerning historical transactions and other potential breaches of FA rules. Immediately upon the completion of the purchase, the club self-reported these matters to all relevant regulators, including the FA. The club has demonstrated unprecedented transparency during this process, including by giving comprehensive access to the club's files and historical data."
So firstly, most of this has been said before and fair play to them for reporting it (although I think it had already leaked and the FA knew, but they've still been transparent when they could have obfuscated like City have done).
But secondly, what this makes clear is that they knew about this BEFORE they bought the club, which means they would have done a piece of work to assess the level of exposure (financially, and possibly in terms of sporting sanctions too). If they start arguing that it's unfair that they are penalised financially for something the current owners didn't do then that's for the birds - they would have knocked the liability off the price they bid for the club. In a normal deal, the agreements would have been structured so that they'd be able to claim against the sellers for this sort of liability. And they'd have know there'd be a risk of sporting sanctions too.
But this will need to go to an independent panel for determination of suitable penalties. That panel should judge these offences in isolation, whereas the Premier League would likely look at all the other piss-taking they've done of late (hotels, women's team) and throw the book at them. For that reason, I'd expect the Premier League to go in hard to make their case and seek the harshest of penalties, but ultimately I suspect the independent panel may go (relatively) easy on them.
You're probably right.
Not if you ask Kaveh….
Agent Pep! I knew you didn't betray us
I like that to be fair. Not everything he says or does is awful.
Might be as big a legend as Klopp at this rate..
Similar threads
