Moshiri and Usmanov deny dual ownership allegations

No-one in football will want any of this to go anywhere, and you can be assured that it won't. I thought it was thin stuff. In David Conn's latest article in the Guardian, he says they've seen a document confirming that a Moshiri controlled company repaid the money for the purchased Arsenal shares to the Usmanov controlled company which funded Red and White Holdings in that purchase, so it looks ok anyway.

What action would they be able to enforce? Could they force Moshiri to relinquish his shares in Everton FC? Could they punish Everton FC with a points deduction or a transfer embargo? Would Usmanov or Arsenal be as responsible for any of the alleged irregularities?

What would the club(s) have done wrong to incur such a punishment as they like the Premier League would have been misled when Moshiri bought into Everton FC.

Is it the club's responibility to vet the validity of the major shareholder? Do the club rely on the Premier League's legal eagles to do that checking on their behalf?

I don't know any of the answers to any of those questions, but perhaps somebody more knowledgeable than I could furnish us all with some of the answers.

That's that.

The only reason this is a thing now is Usminov himself. He's a minority owner of a big England Club. A minority owner who's made himself a bigger media story than the man with all the control.

And a man who, openly, feeds at the trough of Gangster #1 Putin.

You're a producer at the BBC. Need something. "Everyone look at me" Usminov or Roy reviving CP?

Which would you choose?

Can you really see the PL putting Everton and Arsenal, because they'd be in the shit too, both in trouble? No. They'll do nothing to ruin their product.

The PL will do what the PL does: Let it all die down. They'll say: It's complicated financial stuff, no one really understands it, so no one cares, Oh have you seen this weeks games? Some diversion stories, let sweep it all under the carpet and forget about it.

All I have seen is extracts of poorly completed forms 'implying a close connection' between two closely connected wealthy individuals.

This is not uncommon, neither is utilising the same law firm and the same fiduciary, where a lazy approach leads to internal forms being sparsely completed to satisfy a compliance unit or risk committee.

If this was 'evidence' no recommendation for prosecution would be forthcoming in any common law criminal jurisdiction.

And for any readers with a political approach to offshore jurisdictions... rarely does any revenue or monies from UK sources end up in white listed offshore jurisdictions - most if not all monies deposited with Isle of Man banks are now placed with their UK parents overnight to support their lending books.

Non story, likely some communication to clarify with the EPL next!

Nowhere, that's right. For woe betide any investigation into the equally shady financing of what is now the "Big 6"...!

Would they investigate Man U or city or any top club in this way? No.

The premier league has clarified the rules and none were broken.
That's the end of the matter.

Would be nice if Everton could make a statement clarifying the situation, to put and end to this nonsense

You can barely get a driving licence with a couple of letters out of place nowadays, but some are experts at the "Accidental" entries and omissions techniques!

So Alisher Usmanov:
flogs off his Arsenal shares to someone who then makes trouble for Kroenke
buys in to Everton

Oh no !
Why that would be just dreadful, wouldn't it ?

They do not investigate any applications, or look into their finances. How could they? These people do not use building societies to stash their dough. They won't even be named beneficiaries of these off-shore companies.

Some people believe that if accounts are audited, everything is above board - far from it. Isn't that correct, Andrew @ 14?

Clive 11, I used to prefer The World In Action meself.

The Royal Blues

Is something fishy here? yes
Is there something fishy with the whole league? yes
Is there something fishy with the whole game? yes
Will anything happen in the near to medium term? no

Onto our next manager then.

(Behind every great fortune lies a crime.)

In the case of the Paradise papers, the media is done my its usual of muddled presentation, lacking analytical clarity. It's mixing offshore investment with matters that are nothing to do with that, and also failing to distinguish properly between tax avoidance (which is legal, and which most people appear to do) and tax evasion (which is illegal).

Half an hour later, they would have been disappointed to see that not only was there nothing to tell but Everton had fuckin won 3-2!

Guess who is in cahoots with Kroenke and the BBC? Guess who is sure to get his choice of stool pigeon for the next manager?

You guessed it... The Emperor Palpatine... who used to play a Sith in Coronation Street.

Has anything dodgy gone on at another level at any time beforehand involving Usmanov, Moshiri, and their companies? Well it depends what you define as dodgy, and there are many loopholes.

I suspect the BBC have used the Usmanov/Everton/Arsenal/Moshiri link purely because it 'pretties up' their TV show. I mean it's all very interesting, especially given the ownership of the company that brokered the deal between us and Moshiri, but will this all boil down to a full blown cover-up of Usmanov actually being the owner of Everton? No. That seems highly unlikely.

Similarly, the media raises issues about tax avoidance, but often fails to distinguish between avoidance and evasion. Tax avoidance follows the rules, whereas tax evasion does not, and is illegal. So rather than the media focusing on people who follow the rules (regardless of how wealthy they are), they should focus on a possible need to change the rules.

It always strikes me how muddled journalists can be (and usually are) in their coverage and analysis of these matters, often producing criticism (either implied or explicit) of people when there's actually no evidence of any wrongdoing. And of course, leading to politicians waffling about how such people should apologise, when all they've apparently done is use the rules to their best advantage, as most people appear to do.

Surely, we need her view?

I was in work at 8am to be greeted by 10 emails about clients caught up by the so called 'Paradise Papers', I left at 11pm... none of whom have broken any laws, or evaded tax for that matter... they just don't like handing money to the Revenue... dare I say like us all? The difference being that they have enough to spend money ensuring they pay as little as they can legally possible... if politicians or the socialists amongst don't like that, I'd suggest they change the law, until then... best leaving morals out of it.

The BBC his this little line half way down their 'Headline' story "The vast majority of the transactions involve no legal wrongdoing". No S**T!

The Daily Mash sums up Auntie's leading story best: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/rich-bastards-using-tax-havens-report-also-claims-bears-defecate-in-woods-20171106138629

I know what the rules concerning dual ownership say, and such rules have a proper role, and should perhaps be strengthened, but the fact remains that Usmanov has no say whatsoever in the running of Arsenal.

It's been REPORTED by Usmanov. Several times to the media. To Usi, his mate Vladi is the bee's knees. An easy google.

And there's no conspiracy among the media to screw Everton. To them we're just another Club making up the numbers beneath the "Big" clubs.

The FA will do nothing and the Premier League will do nothing because there is nothing to do. This will all fade away and it will take away the news about the real villains as it goes.

Who says we're too clever to be manipulated by the media

Usmanov sells all is Arsenal shares where he is not wanted, buys out Blue Bill and takes full control of just one club - Everton

Just imagine the kind of dodgy deals our chosen one Big Sam could get up to with Alisher's dosh behind him...

Take it easy with those long days, Andrew.

On the other hand, the rule of law is that society must be regulated by the laws of the land, in a civil system.

In my view, it is just capitalists with abundant resources (capital) manipulating the system for their own gain.

Laws are based on morality, so I don't quite understand your words 'leave morality to the side.' What do you think criminal law is based on, morals of the higher moral persons who make the law (the legislators) or the judges (common law).

Look, in short the world is corrupt at every level in one way or another. We just don't see it but in this season of democracy, things have slowly changed throughout the years. The laws only change after the dominant societies have already benefitted tremendously, and often the terms (the rhetorical) 'lessons to be learnt' emanate from these dominants.

I personally think the differences between taxes and the super rich is not morality but the predominants exert their control on the country, creating different rules for them (the rich/ super rich) and the lesser mortals. It's bit like politicians and their expenses claims.

Legitimacy means 'genuine'...looking for tax saving schemes is not legitimate.

If the current rules (the laws) are not considered adequate enough, then this can be raised with politicians (for example through mechanisms such as on-line petitions or pressure groups). The politicians can then review and perhaps change the laws in Parliament, given that our democracy is a Parliamentary democracy.

But what's happening is outwith this system that we have. What we're seeing is chaotic, muddled, discussion by journalists and politicians, and accompanying bullshit. We have politicians saying, year after year, that the system needs to change (through the relevant mechanisms as above), but they do little to put in action their empty rhetoric.

Interestingly, it was written when his own club (Man City) were still languishing in their self imposed 36 year exile from footy achievement (apart from beating Gillingham in a play-off final).

He has had hardly anything to say about their miraculous return to megastardom since they inherited a free stadium and got Sheik Mansour to bankroll them.

Wish Usmanov would just dump the Arses and join Moshiri – we could buy our way into the Top 5 just like those who have (Leicester excepted) dominated English football for the last 30 years.

I'd like the think we all have a sense of fairness in us and in that sense its clear a game we grew up and loved has gone... if it ever existed, and is now simply a business.

Tongue in cheek I'd suggest we leave it to our law makers to address!

And thanks Will - I'm trying!

The rich benefit from the best education systems and then occupy government after first becoming a multimillionaire. The tax system is no different as the makers n shakers create and preserves the rules to benefit them. They give the illusion of meritocracy to everybody else, ie the idea that the individual can attain the position in life that the elite enjoy. The rich benefit from trusts, ie legal devices which protect their assets from the taxman.

About Parliament, who are they? Well, these are often manufactured in the private schools (the Etons), and the clever working class get grammar schools. The grammar schools are very Conservative in politics, so you're more likely to produce a Conservative who will be low court judge in a family court, who is influenced by the local authority (part of the Executive (think Theresa May Gov.) who has targets to meet. The effect will be sub-class parents children being taken away and given to moral parents. Of course the moral parents are the middle class who speak nice. It is also a massive financial incentive. Laws on paper (Rule of Law 2) mean nothing if it is not being enforced. Human Rights matter conveniently, but do not benefit the lowly uneducated often single female parents. It's a bit like intellectual bullying, and the result forced care or forced child adoption.

The low tier of society (see below) are prejudiced in that social workers will take children of families based on superficial reasons. Society delegates roles from the state (any public authority subject to public law) to social workers who are efficiently (but purposely lowly qualified/ trained (only degree level; Churchill said in public media, 'we will fight them on the beaches;' in secret he was calling people vermin and of social workers he said, 'social workers are champions of the species'). The problem with this idea of meritocracy is that there is over inflation in that if there is too much of anything it has less value, it's the same with education. Parliament were also at one time land owners, also noble men ('House of Lords') who just took their place by birth in the legislators House.

Then there is the House of Commons who are supposed to represent the 'Common' people, ie the normal people of society to reflect the people's interest in Parliament. Finally, we have the Crown - the Monarch, who assents to Bills before it is made into a law. The Commons are often educated in Oxford or Cambridge - a big brother to Eton and the like. Oh, for formality sake, the House of Lords who were the highest legal source in the UK's Constitution changed their name to the Supreme Court, a nominal change - a superficial move - to have the lowly underlings in society believe that there is no conflict of interest.

Society is compartmentalised into several tiers. It starts at the upper class right down to the bottom of the lower tier, the sub-class. The sub-class is the society that does not fit in the machine - the UK economy, is portrayed by the controlled media as 'benefit scroungers' - the common denominator is that the low tier will have frequency with the state, ie the social workers, the state benefits system, or the police, will be a permanent feature in their lives. But this is 'normal' society.

In terms of wealth, the UK has approximately 2 trillion economy. 1 trillion 1 followed by 12 zeros. 1.5 trillion is based Southwards whereas the other .5 trillion (500 billion) is left to run three countries: Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and the rest of England. So, the wealth is concentrated down South.

Now, who do you think is going to change the tax system, would you bite the hand that feeds you?

We all try to use the system to our advantage. I don't know of anyone who would willingly pay more tax than they are required to do according to the rules. Minimising our tax burden according to the rules is tax avoidance. This can also be called sensible tax management.

Of course, trying to pay less than the rules require is tax evasion, which is illegal and a different matter entirely.

I guess what I'm saying is, that the politicians and media are hypocrits in focusing on the people who use the system, rather than focusing on the need to change the system. Nothing new there, I suppose, we know they're hypocrits in a more general sense. This is just a specific case.

The wealthiest few will carry a massive stench in their dealings, but you can bet any residue is washed away.

So it's simple. Do you want the money or not? For Panorama's part it just seems very naive.