PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Ric said:
Given that they have effectively accused us of fraudulent accounting over a prolonged period, then this is indeed what they'd have to prove in order to land all of their charges. Whilst the standard of proof is just the balance of probabilities, as with all civil cases, the serious nature of the charges means that cogent evidence is required. If they were only able to show that some of our transactions broke FFP rules then we'd be looking at a minor points deduction at worse.
Click to expand...
Just a couple of points:
Breaking FFP rules does not necessarily constitute fraudulent accounting.
If they took a negative view on Etisalat and Image rights I believe this could exceed Everton's £20M breach for which they received a ten point deduction.
 
Ric said:
Of course not. Let's be clear, the only reason this investigation came about was because of the Football Leaks emails, for which we only have ourselves to blame.
Click to expand...

www.dailymail.co.uk

Paul Pogba and Mino Raiola protect image rights in offshore account

The £2.87million midfielder Paul Pogba earns in commercial and image rights at Manchester United is paid into Aftermath Ltd, a company set up by Raiola in Jersey.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

Plenty of clubs and players were mentioned in Wikileaks but City have been the ones targeted by the media. Most of United's major players had image rights deals to reduce their tax burden. Mancini was paid by a company to reduce his tax in a similar way (not illegal). No one is looking at United's finances. The Glazers' shopping mall businesses are essentially shell companies but they have run up debts of £900m at United with no intention of paying them back until they sell up. They get a free pass everytime from the PL whose leader was vetted by United and Liverpool Directors before he got the job despite having no financial governance or legal experience.
 
Len Rum said:
Just a couple of points:
Breaking FFP rules does not necessarily constitute fraudulent accounting.
If they took a negative view on Etisalat and Image rights I believe this could exceed Everton's £20M breach for which they received a ten point deduction.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
What puzzled me about the Fordham deal is that they paid cash, not to receive an income stream, but to pay more cash out. We know now that this was funded by Abu Dhabi ultimately.
Click to expand...

Well, that's weird. Is that what the 12 million payment ADUG>Fordham one year was about? I thought I understood about Fordham, but I guess then I have no idea at all :)
 
Len Rum said:
Just a couple of points:
Breaking FFP rules does not necessarily constitute fraudulent accounting.
If they took a negative view on Etisalat and Image rights I believe this could exceed Everton's £20M breach for which they received a ten point deduction.
Click to expand...

In our circumstance we can only be charged for breaking FFP if they find us guilty of fraudulent accounting.

Our accounts have been ratified and passed FFP. We can only be found guilty of FFP failure if we have lied about the figures which would be fraudulent accounting.

The Etisalat contract was deemed perfectly fine by CAS, who gave their verdict on it anyway despite elements being time-barred. Can't see an independent commission overruling the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.